Pr tarmtas Mabe ag 


Per ates 


MOURN Vo ses 
Oven 


Sijsnieesy Praag 
yt eway Voastatin 
“Tbs 


Vedas 
with 
SA EIMANSi haa at 

ier eas 


sMevater ays 
Pane 


Wersgh se 
Dard tH pen} 
Mas . 


sehen 
Yyiskous 


Seen Reser 
Fviunyy 
rere 


vel tea 
wins . 


Rarer 
roe nen 
Wdeinee 


wade veigiat an iée. 
Loatarercrerey citys 


har heres 
a : 


Whe getty 


Rte sdearespeaty 


gheqers 
three 

sot ete aay at 

Dag sh ete ee 


ors, 

Bi Eday Lai, 
Shtcaty 

hia erteag 
(bets 


vac Tet 


Palpaete 


vas 
(nat 


ret 


SONY ny 
srg teea tty 
wae 


2 


Pay a Ree 
Lee Ea 
Seseeta 
Pete Masti neal 
ta 





VE Been by 
y ‘ i 


eat 
PIC RL er Bea 4 " a 


Cee 


they ete Dear 1) a 


bees 


Poe rer 
aa da Sate at Vane 
sas pitt sa beads ot ENG Md gh ol 
par oh nw Sihatnchan td a 
st Ms 
pesittd i 
hp ak, 
SP AAA ie 
waht +i) 


ere! 
Paes | 


4 R ans oe oI 
t Nad Ni8s gaye ait 
aha MaMoiN sesdeyseae 
, 


Pape ahanl 
Res ate. 


Named hy 
SSodgh FoR a tae 
Sera see 
Haase inh 
sides 
VTE aN the he 
prin ias 


Poy 
Sabre: 
pT ere Satee awed at 
Si iecadilatarty 
Mats Tiss 


SPAN ot al 
PONT we 
Sehurehe 


pony 
rere 


Pas ee eeerys 
telidy 


PSPCEREC IN Vey aeeynges 


Ass Smt edhe 
sts erste ae 
USCEYET Tata yy) 


PCO Fe RS 
(Mie aistiiete 
htyeete 


Pres Paverare 
hired 


Tigh ereeese 
Pease r ap ase aay 
care ere 


wasbuiea tds o 
Vers yas 


a 
Fae neal ee 
Bet oh Het ely 


Hay RP heas, Th tea ta 


AGRA Tag tung 


Miner ay Bae 
ieee 


Wet ree we 
sesh SPUD ee ie 
TNFR aed ty hate dak Bet 

i aise 


a, v 
heh La hh bee 
er aie 


et Sh 
veer 
tetiete 
she 


Thatayty« 


Ow, 

DRE er Yh 
UP Ore 
+ 


LIBRARY OF PRINCETON 





5 .L/24 On ee 
AUL S EPISTLES TO THE 


4-0 


Po ee ed pure 


4 Mt 


T 
x 
CERTATIONS / .J B | TGHTEOR 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2009 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/saintpaulsepistl1880ligh 





THE EPISTLES OF ST PAUL. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


OTHER BOOKS IN THE 


“CLASSIC COMMENTARY LIBRARY” 
COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH 


by J. A. ALEXANDER 
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN 


by ROBERT S, CANDLISH 
THE EPISELE (OF ST. JAMES 


by JOSEPH B. Mayor 
THE EPISTLE OF ST, PAUL’ TO) THE) GALATIANS 


by J. B. LigHTFOOT 
ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE PHEEIPPIANS 


by J. B. LiGHTFOOT 
COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS 


by JOSEPH ADDISON ALEXANDER 





. int Teal, 
EPISTLES 


TO THE 


Colossians 


AND TO 


Philemon 


A ‘REVISED TEXT 


WITH INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES AND 
DISSERTATIONS 


Ue Lihifoot ke 


ZONDERVAN PUBLISHING HOUSE 
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 


This edition is reprinted com- 
plete and unabridged from the 
revised 1879 edition published by 
MacMillan and Company. 


PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


TO THE 


RIGHT REV. EDWARD HAROLD BROWNE, D.D., 


LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, 


IN SINCERE ADMIRATION 


OF 
HIS PERSONAL CHARACTER AND EPISCOPAL WORK 
AND IN 
GRATEFUL RECOGNITION 


OF 


THE PRIVILEGES OF A PRIVATE FRIENDSHIP. 


MIMHTAl MOY fINECOE KAOMC KdAr@ ypicToY 





IlavAos yevopevos péyioros vmroypappos. 
CLEMENT. 


Ovx ws Matdos Stataccopa vpiv' éxeivos dmécroXos, 
> A ‘ anes: o > , Seaek \ , - a 
€yd Karakpitos” exeivos ehevOepos, eyo S€ péxpt viv dovdAos. 
IaNnaTIUS. 


¥ a 
Oire eyed ovTe GdAos Gpuotos epot Svvatat Kataxodovbjaat 
“ , ~ , a > , ‘ 
7 copia Tov pakapiov kai evdofov Ilavdou. 
PouyoaRP. 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


On the completion of another volume of my commentary, I 
wish again to renew my thanks for the assistance received 
from previous labourers in the same field. Such obligations 
must always be great; but it is not easy in a few words to 
apportion them fairly, and I shall not make the attempt. I 
have not consciously neglected any aid which might render 
this volume more complete; but at the same time I venture 
to hope that my previous commentaries have established my 
claim to be regarded as an independent worker, and in the 
present instance more especially I have found myself obliged 
to diverge widely from the treatment of my predecessors, and 
to draw largely from other materials than those which they 
have collected. 

In the preface to a previous volume I expressed an in- 
tention of appending to my commentary on the Colossian 
Hpistle an essay on ‘Christianity and Gnosis.’ This intention 
has not been fulfilled in the letter; but the subject enters 
largely into the investigation of the Colossian heresy, where 
it receives as much attention as, at all events for the pre- 
sent, it seems to require. It will necessarily come under dis- 
cussion again, when the Pastoral Epistles are taken in hand. 

The question of the genuineness of the two epistles con- 
tained in this volume has been deliberately deferred. It 
could not be discussed with any advantage apart from the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, for the three letters are inseparably 


viii Preface. 


bound together. Meanwhile however the doctrinal and_his- 
torical discussions will, if I mistake not, have furnished answers 
to the main objections which have been urged; while the 
commentary will have shown how thoroughly natural the 
language and thoughts are, if conceived as arising out of an 
immediate emergency. More especially it will have been made 
apparent that the Epistle to the Colossians hangs together 
as a whole, and that the phenomena are altogether adverse 
to any theory of interpolation such as that recently put forward 
by Professor Holtzmann. 

In the commentary, as well as in the introduction, it has 
been a chief aim to illustrate and develope the theological 
conception of the Person of Christ, which underlies the Epistle 
to the Colossians. The Colossian heresy for instance owes 
its importance mainly to the fact that it throws out this 
conception into bolder relief. To this portion of the subject 
therefore I venture to direct special attention. 

I cannot conclude without offering my thanks to Mr A. A. 
VanSittart, who, as on former occasions, has given his aid 
in correcting the proof sheets of this volume; and to the 
Rev. J. J. Scott, of Trinity College, who has prepared the 
index. I wish also to express my obligations to Dr Schiller- 
Szinessy, of whose talmudical learning I have freely availed 
myself in verifying Frankel’s quotations and in other ways. 
I should add however that he is not in any degree responsible 
for my conclusions, and has not even seen what I have written. 


Trinity CoLLEGE, 
April 30, 1875. 


CONTENTS. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 
INTRODUCTION. 


PAGE 

Eth CRUPCREE OF UO DyCiee cs. a scadeseoncteageteran anasto I—72 

Mi RE es COLISStAID SELON ORY sc udchccl sca aloebucdeten vices antecbuater 73—113 

III. Character and Contents of the Epistle .............6.00 I14—128 

eh ND) IVT PES oc scsincde eves na gure sehes beads dbvobe voce cuuuten ee 13I—245 

On some Various Readings in the Epistle ..........0..0.005 246—256 

On the Meaning. of mri popd............0sc0scescedscsaseesseeresses 257—273 

The Epistle SPOTL A EOUICOIDS Oc itis ccs be svinng Baa aawedseratvee aa te 274—300 

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON 

JES INN ILE 19 1s SRR © OSA SESE REEDS GPRS APE eaPaEE ae a 303—329 

ae et NED INO TPES. ms torso nes cad savas bins dace dae cakes adeedbeoweuas 333—346 
DISSERTATIONS. 

Te ete NEDO | PRSOTE 8.5 Cotas merakiaelssoaxsureeteasesenes 349—354 

2. Origin and Affinities of the Essenes .......0cceeceeee 355—396 

3. Essenism and Christiantty.........ccccccceccvecevseccscces 397—419 


See SA Re ees Soe ics oak ua sonebii na aSe avs see dakesasiaweuceecs 421I-—430 


(a iy 
PA ve 


i 
at, 
\ 
7 


ve 
i 





THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


YING in, or overhanging, the valley of the Lycus, Meee 
t 
‘tributary of the Meander, were three neighbouring ies 


cities, 


towns, Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossze’. 


1 The following are among the most 
important books of travel relating to 
this district; Pococke Description of 
the East and Some Other Countries, Vol. 
11, Part m, London 1745; Chandler 
Travels in Asia Minor etc., Oxford 
17753; Leake Tour in Asia Minor, 
London 1824; Arundell Discoveries in 
Asia Minor, London 1834; Hamilton 
Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and 
Armenia, London 1842; Fellows Asia 
Minor, London 1839, Discoveries in 
Lycia, London 1840; Davis Anatolica, 
London 1874; Tchihatcheff Asie Mi- 
neure, Description Physique, Statis- 
tique et Archéologique, Paris 1853 etc., 
with the accompanying Atlas (1860) ; 
Laborde Voyage de VAsie Mineure 
(the expedition itself took place in 
1826, but the date on the title-page 
is 1838, and the introduction was 
written in 1861); Le Bas Voyage 
Archéologique en Gréce et en Asie 
Mineure, continued by Waddington 
and not yet completed; Texier De- 
scription de VAsie Mineure, Vol. 1 
(1839). Itis hardly necessary to add 
the smaller works of Texier and Le 
Bas on Asie Mineure (Paris 1862, 1863) 
in Didot’s series L’ Univers, as these 
have only a secondary value. Of the 


COL. 


The river flows, 


books enumerated, Hamilton’s work 
is the most important for the topo- 
graphy, etc.; Tchihatcheff’s for the 
physical features; and Le Bas and 
Waddington’s for the inscriptions, etc. 
The best maps are those of Hamilton 
and Tchihatcheff: to which should be 
added the Karte von Klein-Asien by 
vy. Vincke and others, published by 
Schropp, Berlin 1844. 

Besides books on Asia Minor gene- 
rally, some works relating especially to 
the Seven Churches may be mentioned. 
Smith’s Survey of the Seven Churches of 
Asia (1678) is a work of great merit for 
the time, and contains the earliest de- 
scription of the sites of these Phrygian 
cities. It was published in Latin first, 
and translated by its author after- 
wards. Arundell’s Seven Churches 
(1828) is a well-known book. Allom and 
Walsh’s Constantinople and the Scenery 
of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor 
illustrated (1850) gives some views of 
this district. Svoboda’s Seven Churches 
of Asia (1869) contains 20 photographs 
and an introduction by the Rev. H. B. 
Tristram. This is a selection from 
a larger series of Svoboda’s photo- 
graphs, published separately. 


Their 
neigh- 
bourhood 
and inter- 
course. 


Physical 
forces at 
work. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


roughly speaking, from east to west; but at this point, which 
is some few miles above its junction with the Meander, its 
direction is more nearly from south-east to north-west’. 
Laodicea and Hierapolis stand face to face, being situated 
respectively on the southern and northern sides of the valley, 
at a distance of six miles’, and within sight of each other, 
the river lying in the open plain between the two. The 
site of Colosse is somewhat higher up the stream, at a distance 
of perhaps ten or twelve miles® from the point where the 
road between Laodicea and Hierapolis crosses the Lycus. 
Unlike Laodicea and Hierapolis, which overhang the valley on 
opposite sides, Colosse stands immediately on the river-bank, 
the two parts of the town being divided by the stream. The 
three cities lie so near to each other, that it would be quite 
possible to visit them all in the course of a single day. 

Thus situated, they would necessarily hold constant in- 
tercourse with each other. We are not surprised therefore 
to find them so closely connected in the earliest ages of 
Christianity. It was the consequence of their position that 
they owed their knowledge of the Gospel to the same evan- 
gelist, that the same phases of thought prevailed in them, 
and that they were exposed to the same temptations, moral 
as well as intellectual. 

The physical features of the neighbourhood are very striking. 
Two potent forces of nature are actively at work to change the 
face of the country, the one destroying old landmarks, the other 
creating fresh ground. 

On the one hand, the valley of the Lycus was and is 


1 The maps differ very considerably Fellows Asia Minor p. 283, Hamilton 


in this respect, nor do the statements 
of travellers always agree. The direc- 
tion of the river, as given in the text, 
accords with the maps of Hamilton and 
Tchihatcheff, and with the accounts 
of the most accurate writers. 

2 Anton. Itin. p. 337 (Wesseling) 
gives the distance as 6 miles, See also 


I. p. 514. The relative position of the 
two cities appears in Laborde’s view, 
pl. xxxix. 

3 I do not find any distinct notice 
of the distance; but, to judge from the 
maps and itineraries of modern tra- 
vellers, this estimate will probably be 
found not very far wrong. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 3 


especially liable to violent earthquakes. The same danger Frequent 
indeed extends over large portions of Asia Minor, but this a 
district is singled out by ancient writers’ (and the testimony 

of modern travellers confirms the -statement’), as the chief 
theatre of these catastrophes. Not once or twice only in the 
history of Laodicea do we read of such visitations laying waste 

the city itself or some flourishing town in the neighbourhood*. 
Though the exterior surface of the earth shows no traces of 
recent volcanoes, still the cavernous nature of the soil and 

the hot springs and mephitic vapours abounding here indicate 

the presence of those subterranean fires which from time to 

time have manifested themselves in this work of destruction. 

But, while the crust of the earth is constantly broken up Deposits 
by these forces from beneath, another agency is actively em- enn 
ployed above ground in laying a new surface. If fire has 
its fitful outbursts of devastation, water is only less powerful in 
its gradual work of reconstruction. The lateral streams which 
swell the waters of the Lycus are thickly impregnated with 
calcareous matter, which they deposit in their course. The 
travertine formations of this valley are among the most re- 
markable in the world, surpassing even the striking pheno- 
mena of Tivoli and Clermont*. Ancient monuments are 
buried, fertile lands overlaid, river-beds choked up and streams 
diverted, fantastic grottoes and cascades and archways of stone 
formed, by this strange capricious power, at once destructive 
and creative, working silently and relentlessly through long 
ages. Fatal to vegetation, these incrustations spread like a 
stony shroud over the ground. Gleaming like glaciers on the 
hill-side they attract the eye of the traveller at a distance 


1 Strabo xii. 8(p. 578) 76 modUrpyrov of Denizli, which is close to Laodicea, 


THS XwWpas Kal TO evcetoTov* el yap 
Tis GdAn, Kal 7 Aaodlkea evoeoros, Kal 
THS WAnGLoxwWpov 6é Kadpovpa, Ioann. 
Lyd. p. 349 (ed. Bonn.) ruxvodrepov 
celerat, ola Ta wept THv Ppvylas Aaod- 
welay kal THY wap altp ‘Lepdv modu. 

2 Thus Pococke (p. 71) in 1745 writes 


‘The old town was destroyed about 25 
years past by an earthquake, in which 
12,000 people perished.’ 

3 See below, p. 38. 

4 Tchihatcheff P. 1. Geogr. Phys. 
Comp. p. 344 8q., esp. p. 353. See the 
references below, pp. 9 8q., 15. 


2 


< 


Produce 
and manu- 
factures of 
the dis- 
trict. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


of twenty miles’, and form a singularly striking feature in 
scenery of more than common beauty and impressiveness. 

At the same time, along with these destructive agencies, 
Its 
rich pastures fed large flocks of sheep, whose fleeces were of 


the fertility of the district was and is unusually great. 


a superior quality; and the trade in dyed woollen goods was 
For the bounty 
of nature was not confined to the production of the material, 
but extended also to the preparation of the fabric. The 
mineral streams had chemical qualities, which were highly 
valued by the dyer’. Hence we find that all the three towns, 
with which we are concerned, were famous in this branch of 
trade. At Hierapolis, as at Thyatira, the guild of the dyers 
appears in the inscriptions as an important and influential 
body*. Their colours vied in brilliancy with the richest 
scarlets and purples of the farther East*. lLaodicea again was 
famous for the colour of its fleeces, probably a glossy black, 
which was much esteemed’, Here also we read of a guild 
of dyers®, And lastly, Colosse gave its name to a peculiar 


the chief source of prosperity to these towns. 


1 Fellows Asia Minor p. 283. 

2 See note 4. 

3 Boeckh no. 3924 (comp. Anatolica 
P. 104) TOUTO To Npwov Zrep~ary 7 épya- 
ata rav Badéwr, at Hierapolis. See 
Laborde, pl. xxxv. In another inscrip- 
tion too (Le Bas and Waddington, no. 
1687) there is mention of the purple- 
dyers, roppupaBadels. 

4 Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 630) gore 62 
kal mpos Badyy éplwy Oavuacras ovp- 
peTpov TO Kara THY ‘Iepay modw Vdwp, 
wore Ta éx THY pifav Bamwrouera évd- 
pitdra elvac rots €x THs KOKKOV Kal Tors 
adoupyéow. 

5 Strabo xii. 8. 16 (p. 578) péper 5 6 
ment tHv Aaodlkeav témos mpoBdrwv 
dperas ovk els padakornra povoy triav 
éplwy, F Kal Trav Midryolav diadéper, 
adAd Kal els THv Kopaknv xpoay, Wore 
kal mpocodetovrat Aammpwos dm ator, 
womep Kat ol KoXooonvol dro Tov ouw- 


voov Xpwyaros, wAnolov olkovvres. For 
this strange adjective xopatds (which 
seems to be derived from xépaé and to 
mean ‘raven-black’) see the passages 
in Hase and Dindorf’s Steph. Thes. 
In Latin we find the form coracinus, 
Vitruv. viii. 3 § 14 ‘Aliis coracino co- 
lore,’ Laodicea being mentioned in the 
context, Vitruvius represents this as 
the natural colour of the fleeces, and 
attributes it to the water drunk by the 
sheep. See also Plin. N. H. viii. 48 
§ 73. So too Hieron. adv. Jovin. ii. 
21 (It. p. 358) ‘Laodicee indumentis 
ornatus incedis,’ The ancient accounts 
of the natural colour of the fleeces in 
this neighbourhood are partially con- 
firmed by modern travellers ; e.g. Po- 
cocke p. 74, Chandler p. 228. 

6 Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3938 [7 ép- 
yacla] trav yvadelwy wat Badéwy Tov] 
adoupy[a]v. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 5 


dye, which seems to have been some shade of purple, and 
from which it derived a considerable revenue’. 

1. Of these three towns LAODICEA, as the most important, ;. Laonr- 
deserves to be considered first. Laodice was a common name jy. Siri 
among the ladies of the royal house of the Seleucide, as antes 
Antiochus was among the p-inces. Hence Antiochia and Lao- 
dicea occur frequently as the designations of cities within 
the dominions of the Syrian kings. Laodicea on the Lycus’, 
as it was surnamed to distinguish it from other towns so 
called, and more especially perhaps from its near neighbour 
Laodicea Catacecaumene, had borne in succession the names 
of Diospolis and Rhoas’; but when refounded by Antiochus 
Theos (B.C. 26I1—246), it was newly designated after his wife 
Laodice*, It is situated’ on an undulating hill, or group 
of hills, which overhangs the valley on the south, being washed 
on either side by the streams of the Asopus and the Caprus, 


tributaries of the Lycus’. 


1 See the passage of Strabo quoted 
p. 4, note 5. The place gives its name 
to the colour, and not conversely, 
as stated in Blakesley’s Herod, vii. 
113. See also Plin. N. H. xxi. 9 § 27, 
‘In vepribus nascitur cyclaminum ... 
flos ejus colossinus in coronas admit- 
titur,’ a passage which assists in de- 
termining the colour. 

2 éml Avxw, Boeckh Corp. Inscr. no. 
3938, Ptol. Geogr. v. 2, Tab. Peut. 
‘laudicium pilycum’; mpds [Te] Avy, 
Iickhel Num. Vet. 111. p. 166, Strabo 
l.c., Boeckh C. I. 5881, 5893; mpds Avxov, 
Boeckh 6478. A citizen was styled 
Aaodixeds amd Avxov, Diog. Laert. ix. 
12 § 116; C.I.L. vt. 3743 comp. zrepl 
Tov Avxov Appian. Mithr. 20. 

3 Plin. N. H. v. 29. 

4 Steph. Byz. s. v., who quotes the 
oracle in obedience to which (ws éxédev- 
ce Zeds vWiBpeuérns) it was founded. 

* For descriptions of Laodicea see 
Smith p. 250 sq., Pococke p. 71 8q., 
Chandler p. 224 sq., Arundell Seven 


Behind it rise the snow-capped 


Churches p.84 sq., Asia Minor 11. p, 180 
sq., Fellows Asia Minor 280 sq., Hamil- 
ton I. p. 514 8q., Davis Anatolica p. 
92 8q., Tchihatcheff P. 1. p. 252 sq., 
258sq. See also the views in Laborde, 
pl. xxxix, Allom and Walsh 11. p. 86, 
and Svoboda phot. 36—38. 

The modern Turkish name is Eski- 
hissar, ‘the Old Castle,’ corresponding 
to the modern Greek, Paledkastro, 
a common name for the sites of an- 
cient cities; Leake p. 251. On the 
ancient site itself there is no town or 
village; the modern city Denizli is a 
few miles off. 

6 The position of Laodicea with 
respect to the neighbouring streams is 
accurately described by Pliny N. H. 
v. 29 ‘Imposita est Lyco flumini, la- 
tera affluentibus Asopo et Capro’; see 
Tchihatcheff P. 1. p. 258. Strabo 
xii. (l. ¢.) is more careless in his de- 
scription (for it can hardly be, as 
Tchihatcheff assumes, that he has 
mistaken one of these two tributaries 


Its grow- 
ing pros- 
perity. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOUS. 


heights of Cadmus, the lofty mountain barrier which shuts in 
the south side of the main valley. A place of no great 
importance at first, it made rapid strides in the last days 
of the republic and under the earliest Caesars, and had be- 
come, two or three generations before St Paul wrote, a po- 
pulous and thriving city. Among its famous inhabitants 
are mentioned the names of some philosophers, sophists, and 
rhetoricians, men renowned in their day but forgotten or 
almost forgotten now’ More to our purpose, as illustrating 
the boasted wealth and prosperity of the city, which appeared 
as a reproach and a stumblingblock in an Apostle’s eyes’, are 
the facts, that one of its citizens, Polemo, became a king and a 
father of kings, and that another, Hiero, having accumulated 
enormous wealth, bequeathed all his property to the people 
and adorned the city with costly gifts’. To the good fortune 
of her principal sons, as well as to the fertility of the country 
around, the geographer Strabo ascribes the increase and pros- 


perity of Laodicea. 


The ruins of public buildings still bear 


testimony by their number and magnificence to the past great- 


ness of the city®. 


for the Lycus itself), évrat@a dé Kal 
6 Karpos cat 6 Avxos cupBare Te 
Madvipw morau@ morauds evpeyébns, 
where évraida refers to 6 wept ry 


Aaodlkecay romos, and where by the. 


junction of the stream with the Ma- 
ander must be intended the junction 
of the combined stream of the Lycus 
and Caprus. On the coins of Lao- 
dicea (Eckhel m1. p. 166, Mionnet Iv. 
p- 330, ib. Suppl. vir. p. 587, 589) 
the Lycus and Caprus appear to- 
gether, being sometimes represented 
as a wolf and a wild boar. The Asopus 
is omitted, either as being a less im- 
portant stream or as being less capa- 
ble of symbolical representation. Of 
modern travellers, Smith (p. 250), and 
after him Pococke (p. 72), have cor- 
rectly described the position of the 
streams. Chandler (p. 227), misled by 
Strabo, mistakes the Caprus for the 


Lycus and the Lycus for the Meander. 
The modern name of the Lycus is 
Tchoruk Sd. 

1 The modern name of Cadmus is 
Baba-Dagh, ‘ The father of mountains.’ 

2 Strabo xii. 1. c. qf dé Aaodlxea 
puxpa mpbrepov ovca avénow éaBev é¢’ 
quay Kal rév nuetépwy marépwy, Kalroe 
KaxwOetoa €x modtopklas émt Mi@piddrov 
Tov Evrdropos. Strabo flourished in 
the time of Augustus and the earlier 
years of Tiberius. The growing im- 
portance of Laodicea dates from before 
the age of Cicero: see p. 7. 

3 Strabo 1. c.; Diog. Laert. ix. 11 
§ 106, 12 § 116; Philostr. Vit. Soph. 
i. 25; Eckhel Doctr. Num. Vet. 111. 
p. 162, 163 sq. 

4 Rev. iii. 17; see below p. 43. 

5 Strabo l. c. On this family see 
Ephemeris Epigraphica i. p. 270 8q. 

6 The ruins of Laodicea have formed 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. Z 


Not less important, as throwing light on the Apostolic Its politi- 
history, is the political status of Laodicea, Asia Minor Rees 


under the Romans was divided into districts, each compris- ele 
ing several towns and having its chief city, in which the 
courts were held from time to time by the proconsul or 

legate of the province, and where the taxes from the sub- 

ordinate towns were collected’. 
gregates was styled in Latin conventus, in Greek dvoienows— 
a term afterwards borrowed by the Christian Church, being 
applied to a similar ecclesiastical aggregate, and thus natu- 
ralised in the languages of Christendom as diocese. At the 
head of the most important of these political dioceses, the 
‘Cibyratic convention’ or ‘jurisdiction,’ as it was called, com- 
prising not less than twenty-five towns, stood Laodicea’. 
Here in times past Cicero, as proconsul of Cilicia, had held 


Each of these political ag- 


his court®; hither at stated 


the quarry out of which the modern 
town of Denizli is built. Yet notwith- 
standing these depredations they are 
still very extensive, comprising an 
amphitheatre, two or three theatres, 
an aqueduct, etc. The amphitheatre 
was built by the munificence of a 
citizen of Laodicea only a few years 
after St Paul wrote, as the inscription 
testifies ; Boeckh C. I. no. 3935. See 
especially Hamilton 1. p. 515 sq., who 
describes these ruins as ‘bearing the 
stamp of Roman extravagance and 
luxury, rather than of the stern and 
massive solidity of the Greeks.’ 

1 See Becker and Marquardt Rom. 
Alterth. 11. 1. p. 136 8q. 

2 See Cic. ad Att. v. 21, ‘Idibus 
Februariis ... forum institueram agere 
Laodiceew Cibyraticum,’ with the re- 
ferences in the next note: comp. also 
Plin. N. H. v. 29 ‘Una (jurisdictio) 
appellatur Cibyratica. Ipsum (i. e. 
Cibyra) oppidum Phrygie est. Con- 
veniunt eo xxv civitates, celeberrima 
urbe Laodicea.’ 


seasons flocked suitors, advo- 


Besides these passages, testimony is 
borne to the importance of the Ciby- 
ratic ‘conventus’ by Strabo, xiii. 4 
§ 17 (p. 631), év rats peyloras é&erdfe- 
rat Seocxnoeot THS Aclas 4 KiBvparexn. 
It will be remembered also that Ho- 
race singles out the Cibyratica negotia 
(Epist. i. 6. 33) to represent Oriental 
trade generally. The importance of 
Laodicea may be inferred from the fact 
that, though the union was named after 
Cibyra, its head-quarters were from the 
first fixed at or soon afterwards trans- 
ferred to Laodicea. 

3 See ad Fam. ii. 17, iii. 5, 7, 8, 
ix. 25, xiii. 54, 67, xV. 4; ad Att. v.16, 
17, 20, 21, Vi. I, 2, 3, 7- He visited 
Laodicea on several occasions, some- 
times making a long stay there, and 
not a few of his letters are written 
thence. See especially his account of 
his work there, ad Att. vi. 2, ‘ Hoc foro 
quod egi ex Idibus Februariis Laodicex 
ad Kalendas Maias omnium dioece- 
sium, preter Cilici#, mirabilia que- 
dam efficimus; ita multe civitates, 


Its religi- 
ous wor- 


ship. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


cates, clerks, sheriffs’-officers, tax-collectors, pleasure-seekers, 
courtiers—all those crowds whom business or leisure or policy 
or curiosity would draw together from a wealthy and populous 
district, when the representative of the laws and the majesty 
of Rome appeared to receive homage and to hold his assize’. 
To this position as the chief city of the Cibyratic union the 
inscriptions probably refer, when they style Laodicea the 
‘metropolis®’ And in its metropolitan rank we see an 
explanation of the fact, that to Laodicea, as to the centre 
of a Christian diocese also, whence their letters would rea- 
dily be circulated among the neighbouring brotherhoods, two 
Apostles addressed themselves in succession, the one writing 
from his captivity in Rome’*, the other from his exile at 
Patmos’. 

On the religious worship of Laodicea very little special in- 
Its tutelary deity was Zeus, whose guardian- 
ship had been recognised in Diospolis, the older name of the 
city, and who, having (according to the legend) commanded its 
rebuilding, was commemorated on its coins with the surname 
Laodicenus®. Occasionally he is also called Aseis, a title which 
perhaps reproduces a Syrian epithet of this deity, ‘the mighty.’ 
If this interpretation be correct, we have a link of connexion 
between Laodicea and the religions of the farther East—a con- 
nexion far from improbable, considering that Laodicea was 


formation exists. 


etc.’ Altogether Laodicea seems to quardtl.c. p.138sq. It had lost its 


have been second in importance to 
none of the cities in his province, ex- 
cept perhaps Tarsus. See also the 
notice, in Verr. Act. il. 1. ¢. 30. 

1 The description which Dion Chry- 
sostom gives in his eulogy of Celanz 
(Apamea Cibotus), the metropolis of 
a neighbouring ‘ dioececis,’ enables us 
to realise the concourse which gather- 
ed together on these occasions: Orat. 
XXXV (II. p. 69) Evvd-yerar AROS dvOpw- 
muy Sixagopever, Sixafdvrwv, iyyeudvur, 
inmnper Gy, olkerGv, K.T.D. 

2 On this word see Becker and Mar- 


original sense, as the mother city of a 
colony. Laodicea is styled ‘ metropolis’ 
on the coins, Mionnet tv. p. 321. 

3 Col. iv. 16 with the notes. See 
also below p. 37, and the introduction 
to the Epistle to the Ephesians. 

4 Rev. iii. 14. 

5 See Eckhel 111. p. 159 8q. (passim), 
Mionnet Iv. p. 315 8q., ib. Suppl. vu. 
p- 578 sq. (passim). In the coins com- 
memorating an alliance with some 
other city Laodicea is represented by 
Zeus; e.g, Mionnet Iv. pp. 320, 324, 
331 6q., Suppl. vit. pp. 586, 589. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 9 


refounded by a Syrian king and is not unlikely to have 
adopted some features of Syrian worship’. 

2. On the north of the valley, opposite to the sloping 2. Hizra- 
hills which mark the site of Laodicea, is a broad level terrace Ite et 
jutting out from the mountain side and overhanging the plain Hee 
with almost precipitous sides. On this plateau are scattered 
the vast ruins of HIERAPOLIS’. 


it abuts occupy the wedge of ground between the Meander 


The mountains upon which 


and the Lycus; but, as the Meander above its junction 
with the Lycus passes through a narrow ravine, they blend, 


1 ACEIC or ACEIC AAOAIKE@N. See 2 For descriptions of Hierapolis, 


Waddington Voyage en Asie Mineure 
au point de vue Numismatique (Paris 
1853) pp. 25, 26 sq. Mr Waddington 
adopts a suggestion communicated to 
him by M. de Longpérier that this 


word represents the Aramaic NIY ‘the | 


strong, mighty,’ which appears also in 
the Arabic ‘Aziz.’ This view gains 
some confirmation from the fact, not 
mentioned by Mr Waddington, that 
“Agigfos was an epithet of the Ares of 
Edessa: Julian Orat. iv; comp. Cure- 


ton Spic. Syr. p. 80, and see Lagarde. 


Gesamm. Abhandl.p.16. On the other 
hand this Shemitic word elsewhere, 
when adopted into Greek or Latin, is 
written”A (.fosor Azizus: see Garrucci in 
the Arch@ologia xuu1t. p. 45 ‘ Tyrio Sep- 
timio Azizo,’ and Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 
9893 "Asttos ’Ayplira Zvpos. M. de Long- 
périer offers the alternative that ACEIC, 
i.e. “Aols, is equivalent to “Aciatixés. 
An objection to this view, stronger 
than those urged by Mr Waddingion, 
is the fact that ’Acfs seems only to be 
used as a feminine adjective. M. 
Renan points to the fact that this 
ZEYC ACEIC is represented with his 
hand on the horns of a goat, and on 
the strength of this coincidence would 
identify him with ‘the Azazel of the 
Semites’ (Saint Paul, p. 359), though 
tradition and orthography alike point to 
some other derivation of Azazel 6b TST). 


see Smith p. 245 sq., Pococke p. 75 
sq., Chandler 229 sq., Arundell Seven 
Churches p. 79 sq., Hamilton p. 517 
sq., Fellows Asia Minor p. 283 sq. 
For the travertine deposits see espe- 
cially the description and plates in 
Tchihatcheff P.1. p. 345, together with 
the views in Laborde (pl. xxxii— 
Xxxvili), and Svoboda (photogr. 41 
—47). Tchihatcheff repeatedly calls 
the place Hieropolis; but this form, 
though commonly used of other towns 
(see Steph. Byz. s. v. ‘Iepamédes, Leake 
Num. Hell. p. 67), appears not to occur 
as a designation of the Phrygian city, 
which seems always to be written Hie- 
rapolis. The citizens however are 
sometimes called ‘Ieporo\trac on the 
coins. 

The modern name is given different- 
ly by travellers. It is generally called 
Pambouk-Kalessi, i.e. ‘ cotton-castle,’ 
supposed to allude to the appearance 
of the petrifactions, though cotton is 
grown in the neighbourhood (Hamilton 
I. p.517). So Smith, Pococke, Chand- 
ler, Arundell, Tchihatcheff, Wadding- 
ton, and others. M. Renan says 
*‘Tambouk, et non Pambouk, Kalessi’ 
(S. Paul p. 357). Laborde gives the 
word Tambouk in some places and 
Pambouk in others; and Leake says 
‘Hierapolis, now called Tabiék-Kale 
or Pambuk-Kale’ (p. 252). 


Io 


Remark- 
able 

physical 
features. 


Their 
relation to 
the Apos- 
tolic his- 
tory. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


when seen from a distance, with the loftier range of the 
Mesogis which overhangs the right bank of the Meander 
almost from its source to its embouchure, and form with it 
the northern barrier to the view, as the Cadmus range does 
Thus 
Hierapolis may be said to lie over against Mesogis, as Laodicea 
lies over against Cadmus’. 

It is at Hierapolis that the remarkable physical features 
which distinguish the valley of the Lycus display themselves 
in the fullest perfection. Over the steep cliffs which support 
the plateau of the city, tumble cascades of pure white stone, 
the deposit of calcareous matter from the streams which, after 
traversing this upper level, are precipitated over the ledge 
into the plain beneath and assume the most fantastic shapes 
At one time overhanging in cornices fringed 


the southern, the broad valley stretching between. 


in their descent. 
with stalactites, at another hollowed out into basins or broken 
up with ridges, they mark the site of the city at a distance, 
glistening on the mountain-side like foaming cataracts frozen 
in the fall. 

But for the immediate history of St Paul’s Epistles the 
striking beauty of the scenery has no value. It is not 
probable that he had visited this district when the letters 
to the Colossians and Laodiceans were written. Were it 
otherwise, we can hardly suppose that, educated under widely 
different influences and occupied with deeper and more absorb- 


1 Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 629) says 
drepBarodar 5& Thy Meowylda...rddres 
elol mpos pev TH Meowylét katavrixpd 
Aaodixelas ‘Iepa ods, x.7.X. He can- 
not mean that Hierapolis was situated 
immediately in or by the Mesogis (for 
the name does not seem ever to be ap- 
plied to the mountains between the 
Lycus and Meander), but that with 
respect to Laodicea it stood over a- 
gainst the Mesogis, as I have explain- 
ed it in the text. The view in Laborde 
(pl. xxxix) shows the appearance of 
Hierapolis from Laodicea. Strabo 


had himself visited the place and 
must have known how it was situated. 
Some modern travellers however (e.g. 
Chandler and Arundell) speak of the 
plateau of Hierapolis as part of the 
Mesogis. Steiger (Kolosser p. 33) 
gets over the difficulty by translating 
Strabo’s words, ‘near the Mesogis but 
on the opposite side (i.e. of the Mx- 
ander) is the Laodicean Hierapolis’ 
(to distinguish it from others of the 
name); but xaravrixpd cannot be 
separated from Aaodixelas without 
violence. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. If 


ing thoughts, he would have shared the enthusiasm which this 
scenery inspires in the modern traveller. Still it will give 
a reality to our conceptions, if we try to picture to ourselves 
the external features of that city, which was destined before 
long to become the adopted home of Apostles and other 
personal disciples of the Lord, and to play a conspicuous part— 
second perhaps only to Ephesus—in the history of the Church 
during the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles. 

Like Laodicea, Hierapolis was at this time an important Hicrapolis 
and a growing city, though not like Laodicea holding metro- ee 
politan rank’. Besides the trade in dyed wools, which it Pl 
shared in common with the neighbouring towns, it had another 
source of wealth and prosperity peculiar to itself. The streams, 
to which the scenery owes the remarkable features already 
described, are endowed with valuable medicinal qualities, 
while at the same time they are so copious that the ancient 
city is described as full of self-made baths’. An inscription, 
still legible among the ruins, celebrates their virtues in heroic 
verse, thus apostrophizing the city: 

Hail, fairest soil in all broad Asia’s realm; 

Hail, golden city, nymph divine, bedeck’d 

With flowing rills, thy jewels®. 
Coins of Hierapolis too are extant of various types, on which 
AMsculapius and Hygeia appear either singly or together’. 
To this fashionable watering-place, thus favoured by nature, 
seekers of pleasure and seekers of health alike were drawn. 

To the ancient magnificence of Hierapolis its extant ruins The mag- 
bear ample testimony. More favoured than Laodicea, it has ers 
not in its immediate neighbourhood any modern town or ™™*- 
village of importance, whose inhabitants have been tempted 
to quarry materials for their houses out of the memorials of 


1 On its ecclesiastical title of me- evdpelns mpopepécrarov otdas amdvruv, 


tropolis, see below, p. 69. 

2 Strabo lic. otrw & early &pOovov 
70 TAOS Tod VdaTos Wore 7 TONS METTH 
Tév avtoudtwv Badavelwy éori. 


3 Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3909, ’Acidos 


xalpos, xpuodmoAs lepdrons, roTva Nup- 
Pav, vauaciv, ayatyot, Kexaouévy. 

4 Mionnet tv. p. 297, 306, 307, 
ib. Suppl. viz. p. 567; Waddington 
Voyage etc. p. 24. 


12 


Tis religi- 
ous WOr- 
ship. 


The Plu- 
ton.um., 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


its former greatness. Hence the whole plateau is covered with 
ruins, of which the extent and the good taste are equally re- 
markable; and of these the palestra and the therme, as 
might be expected, are among the more prominent. 

A city, which combined the pursuit of health and of 
gaiety, had fitly chosen as its patron deity Apollo, the god 
alike of medicine and of festivity, here worshipped especially 
as ‘ Archegetes,’ the Founder’. But more important, as illus- 
trating the religious temper of this Phrygian city, is another 
fact connected with it. In Hierapolis was a spot called the 
Plutonium, a hot well or spring, from whose narrow mouth 
issued a mephitic vapour immediately fatal to those who 
stood over the opening and inhaled its fumes. To the muti- 
lated priests of Cybele alone (so it was believed) an immunity 
was given from heaven, which freed them from its deadly 
effects. Indeed this city appears to have been a chief centre 
of the passionate mystical devotion of ancient Phrygia. But 
indications are not wanting, that in addition to this older 
worship religious rites were borrowed also from other parts 


1 Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3905, 3906; 
Mionnet Iv. pp. 297, 301, 307, ib. Suppl. 
vil. p. 568, 569, 570. In coins struck 
to commemorate alliances with other 
cities, Hierapolis is represented by 
Apollo Archegetes: Mionnet Iv. p. 303, 
ib. Suppl. vir. 572, 573, 574; Wad- 
dington Voyage etc. p. 25; and see 
Eckhel 1m. p. 156. On the meaning 
of Archegetes, under which name 
Apollo was worshipped by other cities 
also, which regarded him as their 
founder, see Spanheim on Callim. 
Hymn. Apoll. 57. 

2 Strabo l.c. He himself had seen 
the phenomenon and was doubtful how 
to account for the immunity of these 
priests, etre Oela mpovolg...cite dvTi6i- 
ros Tiol duvdyeot TovTov oupBalvovTos. 
See also Plin. N. H. ii. 93 § 95 ‘lo- 
cum...matris tanftum magne sacerdoti 
innoxium.’ Dion Cass. (Xiphil. ) lxviii. 


27, who also witnessedthe phenomenon, 
adds ov phy kal THv airlav avTod cuvvon- 
oar éxyw, Aéyw 6é & TE eldov ws el doy kal 
& #kovca ws Heovoa. Ammian. Marc. 
Xxili. 6. 18 also mentions this mar- 
vel, but speaks cautiously, ‘ut asse- 
runt quidam,’ and adds ‘quod qua 
causa eveniat, rationibus physicis per- 
mittatur.’ Comp. Anthol. vi1. p. 190 
Ei ris drayéacOa pév dxvel Oavarov 6’ 
ériOupet, €& ‘lepas wodews Wuxpdv vowp 
miérw; Stobeus Hcl. i. 34, p. 680. La- 
borde states (p. 83) that he discovered 
by experiment that the waters are 
sometimes fatal to animal life and 
sometimes perfectly harmless; and if 
this be substantiated, we have a solu- 
tion of the marvel. Other modern 
travellers, who have visited the Pluto- 
nium, are Cockerell (Leake p. 342), 
and Svoboda. In Svoboda’s work a 
chemical analysis of the waters is giveu. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 13 


of the East, more especially from Egypt’. By the multitude 
of her temples Hierapolis established her right to the title of 
the ‘sacred city, which she bore’. 

Though at this time we have no record of famous citizens The birth- 
at Hierapolis, such as graced the annals of Laodicea, yet a gene- sae ay 
ration or two later she numbered among her sons one nobler 
far than the rhetoricians and sophists, the millionaires and 
princes, of whom her neighbour could boast. The lame slave 
Epictetus, the loftiest of heathen moralists, must have been 
growing up to manhood when the first rumours of the Gospel 
reached his native city. Did any chance throw him across 
the path of Epaphras, who first announced the glad-tidings 
there? Did he ever meet the great Apostle himself, while Epictetus 
dragging out his long captivity at Rome, or when after his wee ci 
release he paid his long-promised visit to the valley of the 
Lycus? We should be glad to think that these two men met 
together face to face—the greatest of Christian, and the great- 
est of heathen preachers. Such a meeting would solve more 
than one riddle. A Christian Epictetus certainly was not: 
his Stoic doctrine and his Stoic morality are alike apparent ; 
but nevertheless his language presents some strange coinci- 
dences with the Apostolic writings, which would thus receive 
an explanation®. It must be confessed however, that of any 
outward intercourse between the Apostle and the philosopher 
history furnishes no hint. 

3. While the sites of Laodicea and Hierapolis are con- 3. Cotos- 
spicuous, so that they were early identified by their ruins, Difficulty 
the same is not the case with CoLoss&. Only within the seni 
present generation has the position of this once famous city site. 
been ascertained, and even now it lacks the confirmation of any 


1 On a coin of Hierapolis, Pluto- where in this neighbourhood. At 


Serapis appears seated, while before 
him stands Isis with a sistrum in her 
hand; Waddington Voyage etc. p. 24. 
See also Mionnet tv. pp. 296, 305; 
Leake Num. Hell. p. 66. 

The worship of Serapis appears else- 


Chonz (Colosse) is an inscription 
recording a vow to this deity; Le Bas 
Asie Mineure inser. 1693 b. 

2 Steph. Byz. s. v. dd rod iepd wod- 
Ad exe. 

3 See Philippians, pp. 312, 313. 


14 


Subterra- 

neanchan- 
nel of the 
Lycus, 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


inscription found in situ and giving the name!. Herodotus 
states that in Colosse the river Lycus disappears in a sub- 
terranean cave, emerging again at a distance of about five 
stades*; and this very singular landmark—the underground 
passage of a stream for half a mile—might be thought to have 
placed the site of the city beyond the reach of controversy. 
But this is not the case. In the immediate neighbourhood of 
the only ruins which can possibly be identified with Colosse, 
no such subterranean channel has been discovered. But on the 
other hand the appearance of the river at this point suggests 
that at one time the narrow gorge through which it runs, as 
it traverses the ruins, was overarched for some distance with in- 
crustations of travertine, and that this natural bridge was broken 
up afterwards by an earthquake, so as to expose the channel 


of the stream’. 


1 See however a mutilated inscrip- 
tion (Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3956) with 
the letters... HNN, found near Chone. 

2 Herod. vii. 30 dalxero és Kodoooas, 
mow pweyadnv Ppvylys, ev Ty AvKos mo- 
Taos és xdoua ys éoBadd\wv dadavi fe- 
Tat, @reira dud oTadiwy ws mévre pd- 
hora Kn dvadawomevos éxdid02 Kal otros 
és Tov Malavédpor. 

3 This is the explanation of Hamil- 
ton (1. p. 509 8q.), who (with the doubt- 
ful exception of Laborde) has the merit 
of having first identified and gescribed 
the site of Colosse. It stands on the 
Tchoruk 84 (Lycus) at the point where 
it is joined by two other streams, the 
Bounar Bashi 84 and the Ak-S4. In 
confirmation of his opinion, Hamilton 
found a tradition in the neighbourhood 
that the river had once been covered 
over at this spot (p.522). He followed 
the course of the Lycus for some dis- 
tance without finding any subterrane- 
an channel (p. 521 sq.). 

It is difficult to say whether the fol- 
lowing account in Strabo xii. 8 § 16 
(p. 578) refers to the Lycus or not; 


This explanation seems satisfactory. If it be 


Bpos Kaduos é& od cal 6 Avxos pet xai 
Gos cuwvupos TY Spat To wréov 
ovTos vrd vis puels lr’ dvaxiWas ouvé- 
mecev els TavTO Tois dots ToTapols, é-- 
galvwv dua kal TO modvTpyTov THs Xapas 
kal To eUoecorov. If the Lycus is meant, 
may not cuvérecev imply that this re- 
markable feature had changed before 
Strabo wrote? 

Laborde (p. 103), who visited the 
place before Hamilton, though his ac- 
count was apparently not published 
till later, fixes on the same site for 
Colosse, but thinks that he has dis- 
covered the subterranean course of the 
Lycus, to which Herodotus refers, much 
higher up a stream, close to its source 
(‘a dix pas de cette source’), which he 
describes as ‘a deux lieues au nord de 
Colosse.’ Yet in the same paragraph 
he says ‘Or il [Hérodote, exact cice- 
rone] savait que le Lycus disparait 
pres de Colosse, ville considérable de 
la Phrygie’ (the italics are his own). 
He apparently does not see the 
vast difference between his prés de 
Colosse thus widely interpreted and 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 15 


rejected, we must look for the underground channel, not within 

the city itself, as the words of Herodotus strictly interpreted 
require, but at some point higher up the stream. In either 

case there can be little doubt that these are the ruins of 
Colosse. The fact mentioned by Pliny’, that there is in this Petrifying 
: : : . ‘ . : ., Stream, 
city a river which turns brick into stone, is satisfied by a side 
stream flowing into the Lycus from the north, and laying 
large deposits of calcareous matter; though in this region, as 

we have seen, such a phenomenon is very far from rare. The 

site of Colossze then, as determined by these considerations, lies 

two or three miles north of the present town of Chonos, the 
medieval Chonez, and some twelve miles east of Laodicea. 

The Lycus traverses the site of the ruins, dividing the city 

into two parts, the necropolis standing on the right or northern 

bank, and the town itself on the left. 

Commanding the approaches to a pass in the Cadmus range, Its ancient 
and standing on a great high-way communicating between ee 
Eastern and Western Asia, Colossa at an early date appears 
as a very important place. Here the mighty host of Xerxes 
halted on its march against Greece; it is mentioned on this 
occasion as ‘a great city of Phrygia®’ Here too Cyrus remained 
seven days on his daring enterprise which terminated so 
fatally; the Greek captain, who records the expedition, speaks 
of it as ‘a populous city, prosperous and great®” But after 
this time its glory seems to wane. The political supremacy 


the precise év rf of Herodotus himself. 
Obviously no great reliance can be 
placed on the accuracy of a writer, 
who treats his authorities thus. The 
subterranean stream which Laborde 
saw, and of which he gives a view 
(pl. xl), may possibly be the pheno- 
menon to which Herodotus alludes ; but 
if so, Herodotus has expressed himself 
very carelessly. On the whole Hamil- 
ton’s solution seems much more proba- 
ble. See however Anatolica p. 117 sq. 

Arundell’s account (Seven Churches 
p- 98 sq., Asia Minor p. 160 sq.) is 


very confused and it is not clear 
whether he has fixed on the right site 
for Colosse; but it bears testimony to 
the existence of two subterranean 
courses of rivers, though neither of 
them is close enough to the city to 
satisfy Herodotus’ description. 

1 Plin. N. H. xxxi.2§20. This is 
the Ak-S4, which has strongly petrify- 
ing qualities. 

? Herod. vii. 30. See p. 14, note 2. 

3 Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6 éfeAavver 51a Ppv- 
ylas...els KoXooods, médww olxovpévny, 
evdaiuova Kal meyadny. 


16 


and later 
decline. 


Uncertain 
ortho- 

graphy of 
the name. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


of Laodicea and the growing popularity of Hierapolis gradu- 
ally drain its strength; and Strabo, writing about two genera- 
tions before St Paul, describes it as a ‘small town?’ in the 
district of which Laodicea was the capital. We shall there- 
fore be prepared to find that, while Laodicea and Hierapolis 
both hold important places in the early records of the Church, 
Colossze disappears wholly from the pages of history. Its com- 
parative insignificance is still attested by its ruins, which are 
few and meagre’, while the vast remains of temples, baths, 
theatres, aqueducts, gymnasia, and sepulchres, strewing the 
extensive sites of its more fortunate neighbours, still bear wit- 
ness to their ancient prosperity and magnificence. It is not 
even mentioned by Ptolemy, though his enumeration of towns 
includes several inconsiderable places*. Without doubt Colosse 
was the least important church to which any epistle of St Paul 
was addressed. 

And perhaps also we may regard the variation in the 
orthography of the name as another indication of its com- 
Are we to write 
So far as the evidence goes, the con- 


parative obscurity and its early extinction. 
Colosse or Colasse ? 
clusion would seem to be that, while Colosse alone occurs 
during the classical period and im St Paul's time, it was after- 
wards supplanted by Colassze, when the town itself had either 
disappeared altogether or was already passing out of notice*. 


1 rédoua, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (Pp. 576). 
Plin. N. H. v. 32. § 41 writes ‘Phrygia 
...oppida ibi celeberrima preter jam 


v. 28, 29 § 29), so that only decayed 
and third-rate towns remain. The 
Ancyra here mentioned is not the 


dicta, Ancyra, Andria, Celenz, Colos- 
se,’ etc. The commentators, referring 
to this passage, overlook the words 
‘preter jam dicta,’ and represent Pliny 
as calling Colosse ‘oppidum celeberri- 
mum.’ Not unnaturally they find it 
difficult to reconcile this expression 
with Strabo’s statement. But in fact 
Pliny has already exhausted all the 
considerable towns, Hierapolis, Lao- 
dicea, Apamea, etc., and even much 
less important places than these (see 


capital of Galatia, but a much smailer 
Phrygian town. 

2 Laborde p. 102 ‘De cette grande 
célébrité de Coloss# il ne reste presque 
rien: ce sont des substructions sans 
suite, des fragments sans grandeur; 
les restes d’un théA&tre de médiocre 
dimension, une acropole sans hardi- 
esse,’ etc.; comp. Anatolica p. 115. 

3 Geogr. V. 2. 

4 All Greek writers till some cen- 
turies after the Christian era write it 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 17 


Considered ethnologically, these three cities are generally Se 
regarded as belonging to Phrygia. But as they are situated abla 
on the western border of Phrygia, and as the frontier line 


the three 
cities, 
separating Phrygia from Lydia and Caria was not distinctly 


Kodoooal: so Herod. vii. 30, Xen. hand év Kodaccais is read by KP. 17. 


Anab. i. 2. 6, Strabo xii. 8. 13, Diod. 
xiv. 80, Polyen. Strat. vil. 16. 13 
though in one or more mss of some 
of these authors it is written Ko\accal, 
showing the tendency of later scribes. 
Colosse is also the universal form in 
Latin writers. The coins moreover, even 
as late as the reign of Gordian (a.D. 238 
—244) when they ceased to be struck, 
universally have KOAOCCHNO! (or KO- 
AOCHNO!); Mionnet rv. p. 267 s8q.: 
see Babington Numismatic Chronicle 
New series 111. p. 1 8q., 6. In Hie- 
rocles (Synecd. p. 666, Wessel.) and 
in the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46) 
Ko\acoat seems to be the original read- 
ing of the text, and in later Byzan- 
tine writers this form is common, If 
Prof. Babington (p. 3) were right in 
supposing that it is connected with 
koAogods, the question of the correct 
spelling might be regarded as settled ; 
but in a Phrygian city over which so 
many Eastern nations swept in suc- 
cession, who shall say to what lan- 
guage the name belonged, or what are 
its affinities ? 

Thus, judging from classical usage, 
we should say that Kodoooai was the 
old form and that Kodacoal did not 
supplant it till some time after St 
Paul’s age. This view is confirmed 
by a review of the authorities for the 
different readings in the New Testa- 
ment. 

In the opening of the epistle (i. 1) 
the authorities for éy Kodogsais are 
overwhelming. Itis read by NBDFGL 
(A is obliterated here and C is want- 
ing); and in the Old Latin, Vulgate, 
and Armenian Versions. On the other 


COL. 


37. 47, and among the versions by the 
Memphitic and the Philoxenian Syriac 


(conmrd\an, though the marg. 
gives KOACCaICc). In the Peshito also 
the present reading represents Ko\ac- 
cais, but as the vowel was not express- 
ed originally and depends on the later 
pointing, its authority can hardly be 
quoted. The Thebaic is wanting here. 
In the heading of the epistle how- 
ever there is considerably more au- 
thority for the form in a. Kodaccaers 
is the reading of AB* KP . 37 (Koha- 
caes). 47. CO is wanting here, but has 
Kodaooaes in the subscription. On 
the other hand Kodogcaes (or Kodoo- 
gais) appears in NB! (according to 
Tregelles, but B Tisch.; see his introd. 
p. xxxxviii) DFG (but G has left Ko- 
Aacoaes in the heading of one page, 
and Ko\aogaes in another) L, 17 (Ko- 
Aocaers), in the Latin Version, and in 
the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac. 
The readings of both Peshito and 
Philoxenian (text) here depend on the 
vocalisation ; and those of other ver- 
sions are not recorded. In the sub- 
scription the preponderance of au- 
thority is even more favourable to 
Kodaccaers. 
' Taking into account the obvious 
tendency which there would be in 
scribes to make the title rpds Kodoo- 
gaeis OY mpds Kodacoae’s conform to 
the opening éy KoXogcais or év Kodac- 
cats, aS shown in G, we seem to 
arrive at the conclusion that, while é 
Kodogcais was indisputably the original 
reading in the opening, mpds Kodac- 
oaeis was probably the earlier reading 
in the title. If so, the title must have 


2 


18 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


traced, this designation is not persistent’. Thus Laodicea is 
sometimes assigned to Caria, more rarely to Lydia’; and again, 
Hierapolis is described as half Lydian, half Phrygian®, On 
the other hand I have not observed that Colossz is ever re- 
garded as other than Phrygian‘, partly perhaps because the 
notices relating to it belong to an earlier date when these 
several names denoted political as well as ethnological divi- 
sions, and their limits were definitely marked in consequence, 
but chiefly because it lies some miles to the east of the other 
cities, and therefore farther from the doubtful border land. 


Their Phrygia however ceased to have any political significance, 
eee when this country came under the dominion of the Romans. 


Politically speaking, the three cities with the rest of the 


been added at a somewhat later date ; 
which is not improbable. 

Connected with this question is the 
variation in the adjectival form, -yvéds 
or -ae’s. Parallels to this double ter- 
mination occur in other words; e.g. 
Aoxiunvds, Aoximets; Aaodixnvds, Aao- 
duces 3 Nexanvds, Nixaevs ; Dayadaoon- 
vés, Laryadaccevs, etc. The coins, while 
they universally exhibit the form in 0, 
are equally persistent in the termina- 
‘tion -nvés, KOAOCCHNOON 5 and it is 
curious that to the form Kodogonvol 
in Strabo xii. 8 § 16 (p. 578) there is 
a various reading Kodaccae’s. Thus, 
though there is no necessary con- 
nexion between the two, the termina- 
tion -yv4s seems to go with the o form, 
and the termination -aev’s with the’a 
form. 

For the above reasons I have written 
confidently év Kodogcats in the text, 
and with more hesitation wpds Kodac- 
cae’s in the superscription. 

1 Strabo, xiii, 4. 12 (p. 628) 7a & 
é&Gs ért ra viria pépy Tots Toros TOUTS 
éumdokas exer péxpt mpds tov Tadpor, 
wate kal ra Ppvyca kal ra Kapixd cat 
ra Avda cal re Ta THY Muody ducdd- 
kpita elvac mapamlrrovra els AAAn\a* 


els 68 Thy ovyxvow Tairnvy od pKpd 
ou\AapBdvec Td Tors: ‘Pwuatlovs wy Kara 
pira dvedety adrovs K.T.r. 

2 To Phrygia, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 
576), Polyb. v. 57, and so generally; 
to Caria, Orac. Sibyll. iii. 472 Kapav 
dy\aov dorv, Ptol. v. 2, Philostr. Vit. 
Soph. i. 25 (though in the context 
Philostratus adds that at one time 7g 
Ppvylg Ewerdrrero); to Lydia, Steph. 
Byz. s.v. On the coins the city is 
sometimes represented as seated be- 
tween two female figures @pyria and 
Kapila; Eckhel mr. p. 160, comp. 
Mionnet rv. p. 329. From its situation 
on the confines of the three countries 
Laodicea seems to have obtained the 
surname Trimitaria or Trimetaria, by 
which it is sometimes designated in 
later times: see below, p. 65, note 4, 
and comp. Wesseling, Itin. p. 665. 

3 Steph. Byz. s. v. says peratd Bpv- 
ylas kat Avilas rods. But generally 
Hierapolis is assigned to Phrygia: e.g. 
Ptol. v. 2, Vitruv. viil. 3 § ro. 

4 Coloss# is assigned to Phrygia in 
Herod. vii. 30, Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6, 
Strabo xii. 8. 13, Diod. xiv. 80, Plin. 
N. H. v. 32 § 41, Polyen. Strat. vii. 
16. I. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 19 


Cibyratic union belonged at this time to Asia, the procon- 
sular province’, As an Asiatic Church accordingly Laodicea 
is addressed in the Apocalyptic letter. To this province they 
had been assigned in the first instance; then they were handed 
over to Cilicia’; afterwards they were transferred and retrans- 
ferred from the one to the other; till finally, before the Chris- 
tian era, they became a permanent part of Asia, their original 
province. Here they remained, until the close of the fourth 
century, when a new distribution of the Roman empire was 
made, and the province of Phrygia Pacatiana created with Lao- 
dicea as its capital *. 

The Epistle to the Colossians supposes a powerful Jewish Important 
colony in Laodicea and the neighbourhood. We are not how- 222 |, 
ever left to draw this inference from the epistle alone, but the ees 
fact is established by ample independent testimony. When, hood. 
with the insolent licence characteristic of Oriental kings, An- 
tiochus the Great transplanted two thousand Jewish families 
from Babylonia and Mesopotamia into Lydia and Phrygia’, Colony of 
we can hardly doubt that among the principal stations of these jogens 
new colonists would be the two most thriving cities of Phrygia, 
which were also the two most important settlements of the 
Syrian kings, Apamea and Laodivea, the one founded by 
his grandfather Antiochus the First, the other by his father 
Antiochus the Second. If the commercial importance of Apa- 
mea at this time was greater (for somewhat later it was reck- 


oned second only to Ephesus among the cities of Asia Minor 


1 After the year B.c. 49 they seem sense, as applying to the Roman pro- 


to have been permanently attached to 
‘Asia’: before that time they are 
bandied about between Asia and Ci- 
licia. These alternations are traced by 
Bergmann de Asia provincia (Berlin, 
1846) and in Philologus 11. 4 (1847) 
p. 641 sq. See Becker and Marquardt 
Rom. Alterth. 111. 1. p. 130 sq. Lao- 
dicea is assigned to ‘ Asia’ in Boeckh 
Corp. Inscr. 6512, 6541, 6626. 

The name ‘Asia’ will be used 
throughout this chapter in its political 


vince. 

2 Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 67 ‘ex pro- 
vincia mea Ciliciensi, cui scis tpets 
Siouxyjoers Asiaticas [i.e. Cibyraticam, 
Apamensem, Synnadensem] attributas 
fuisse’; ad Att. v. 21 ‘mea expectatio 
Asis nostrarum dicecesium’ and ‘in 
hac mea Asia.’ See also above, p. 7, 
notes 2, 3. 

8 Hierocles Synecd. p. 664 sq. (Wes- 
sel.): see below, p. 69. 

# Joseph. Antig. xii. 3, 4. 


2—z2 


Confisca- 
tions of 
TIlaccus. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


as a centre of trade), the political rank of Laodicea stood 
higher’. When mention is made of Lydia and Phrygia’, 
this latter city especially is pointed out by its position, for it 
A Jewish settle- 
ment once established, the influx of their fellow-countrymen 
Accordingly under the Roman 


stood near the frontier of the two countries. 


would be rapid and continuous. 
domination we find them gathered here in very large numbers. 
When Flaccus the propreetor of Asia (B.c.62), who was afterwards 
accused of maladministration in his province and defended by 
Cicero, forbade the contributions of the Jews to the temple- 
worship and the consequent exportation of money to Palestine, 
he seized as contraband not less than twenty pounds weight in 
gold in the single district of which Laodicea was the capital *. 
Calculated at the rate of a half-shekel for each man, this sum 
represents a population of more than eleven thousand adult 
freemen‘: for women, children, and slaves were exempted. It 
must be remembered however, that this is only the sum which 


1 Strabo xii. 8 13 (p. 576) efra 
*Andpuea % KiBwrds Aeyouévn Kal Aao- 
Sixera almep elot péyiorae TG KaTa THY 
Ppvylav wbdewv. Below § 15 (p. 577) 
he says ’Arduea 6 éorlv dumdbpiov péya 
Ths ldiws Aeyouévns ’Aclas devrepevov 
pera thy “Edecov. The relative im- 
portance of Apamea and Laodicea two 
or three generations earlier than St 
Paul may be inferred from the notices 
in Cicero; but there is reason for 
thinking that Laodicea afterwards grew 
more rapidly than Apamea. 

2 In Josephus 1, c. the words are 7a 
kara THv Ppvytay cat Aviéiav, the two 
names being under the vinculum of 
the one article: while immediately 
afterwards Lydia is dropped and Phry- 
gia alone named, méupae Twas... els 
Ppvylav. 

3 Cic. pro Flacc. 28 ‘Sequitur auri 
illa invidia Judaici...Quum aurum Ju- 
deorum nomine quotannis ex Itaha et 
ex omnibus provinciis Hierosolyma 


exportari soleret, Flaccus sanxit edicto 
ne ex Asia exportari liceret...multitu- 
dinem Judzorum, flagrantem non- 
numquam in concionibus, pro repub- 
lica -contemnere gravitatis summp 
fuit...Apames manifesto comprehen- 
sum ante pedes pretoris in foro ex- 
pensum est auri pondo centum paullo 
minus... Laodices viginti pondo paullo 
amplius.’ 

Josephus (Antig. xiv. 7. 2), quoting 
the words of Strabo, réuyas 6 Mcpi- 
ddrns els KG édaBe...7a tav “lovdalwy 
éxrakoowa TdAavra, explains this enor- 
mous sum as composed of the temple- 
offerings of the Jews which they sent 
to Cos for safety out of the way of 
Mithridates. 

4 This calculation supposes (1) That 
the half-skekel weighs 110 gr.; (2) That 
the Roman pound is gs050 gr.: (3) 
That the relation of gold to silver was 
at this time as 12:1. This last esti- 
mate is possibly somewhat too high. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


the Roman officers succeeded in detecting and confiscating ; 
and that therefore the whole Jewish population would pro- 
bably be much larger than this partial estimate implies. The 
amount seized at Apamea, the other great Phrygian centre, 


was five times as large as this. Somewhat later we have a Other 
evidence. 


document purporting to be a decree of the Laodiceans, in which 
they thank the Roman Consul for a measure granting to 
Jews the liberty of observing their sabbaths and practising 
other rites of their religion®; and though this decree is pro- 
bably spurious, yet it serves equally well to show that at this 
time Laodicea was regarded as an important centre of the 
dispersion in Asia Minor. To the same effect may be quoted 
the extravagant hyperbole in the Talmud, that when on a cer- 
tain occasion an insurrection of the Jews broke out in Cesarea 
the metropolis of Cappadocia, which brought down upon their 
heads the cruel vengeance of king Sapor and led to a mas- 
sacre of 12,000, ‘the wall of Laodicea was cloven with the 
sound of the harpstrings’ in the fatal and premature mer- 
riment of the insurgents®, This place was doubtless singled 


1 The coinage of Apamea affords a stated to have rested there. Whether 


striking example of Judaic influence 
at a later date. On coins struck at 
this place in the reigns of Severus, 
Macrinus, and the elder Philip, an 
ark is represented floating on the 
waters. Within are a man and a wo- 
man: on the roof a bird is perched ; 
while in the air another bird ap- 
proaches bearing an olive-branch in 
its claws. The ark bears the inscrip- 
tion N@€. Outside are two standing 
figures, a man and a woman (ap- 
parently the same two who have been 
represented within the ark), with their 
hands raised as in the attitude of 
prayer. The connexion of the ark 
of Noah with Apamea is explained by 
& passage in one of the Sibylline 
Oracles (i. 261 sq.), where the moun- 
tain overhanging Apamea is identified 
with Ararat, and the ark (k:Bwrds) is 


this Apamea obtained its distinctive 
surname of Cibotus, the Ark or Chest, 
from its physical features or from its 
position as the centre of taxation and 
finance for the district, or from some 
other cause, it is difficult to say. In 
any case this surname might naturally 
suggest to those acquainted with the 
Old Testament a connexion with the 
deluge of Noah; but the idea would 
not have been adopted in the coinage 
of the place without the pressure of 
strong Jewish influences. On these 
coins see Eckhel Doctr. Num. Vet. u1. 
p. 132 sq., and the paper of Sir F. 
Madden in the Numismatic Chronicle 
N.S. vr. p. 173 sq. (1866), where they 
are figured. 

2 Joseph. Ant, xiv. 10. 21. 

3 Talm. Babl. Moéd Katon 26a, quot- 
ed by Neubauer, La Géographie du 


21 


22 


Special 
attrac- 
tions of 
Hiera- 
polis. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


out, because it had a peculiar interest for the Jews, as one 
of their chief settlements’. It will be remembered also, that 
Phrygia is especially mentioned among those countries which 
furnished their quota of worshippers at Jerusalem, and were 
thus represented at the baptism of the Christian Church on 
the great day of Pentecost’. 

Mention has already been made of the traffic in dyed wools, 
which formed the staple of commerce in the valley of the 
Lycus*, It may be inferred from other notices that this branch 
of trade had a peculiar attraction for the Jews*. If so, their 
commercial instincts would constantly bring fresh recruits to a 
colony which was already very considerable. But the neighbour- 
hood held out other inducements besides this. Hierapolis, the 
gay watering place, the pleasant resort of idlers, had charms 
for them, as well as Laodicea the busy commercial city. At 
least such was the complaint of stricter patriots at home. 
‘The wines and the baths of Phrygia,’ writes a Talmudist bit- 


terly, ‘have separated the ten tribes from Israel *,’ 


Talmud p. 319, though he seems to 
have misunderstood the expression 
quoted in the text, of which he gives 
the sense, ‘Cette ville tremblait au 
bruit des fléches qu’on avait tirées.’ 

It is probably this same Lacdicea 
which is meant in another Talmudical 
passage, Talm. Babl. Baba Metziah 
84 a (also quoted by Neubauer, p. 311), 
in which Elijah appearing to R. Ish- 
mael ben R, Jose, says ‘ Thy father 
fled to Asia; flee thou to Laodicea,’ 
where Asia is supposed to mean 
Sardis. 

1 An inscription found at Rome in 
the Jewish cemetery at the Porta Por- 
tuensis (Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 9916) 
runs thus; €NO6A . KITE . AMMIA . 
[e]ioyAea . arto . AAAIKIAC. «.7.2., 
l.e. @vOa xeirac "Auula "Iovdala dd 
Aaodixelas. Probably Laodicea on the 
Lycus is meant. Perhaps also we 
may refer another inscription (6478), 
which mentions one Trypho from Lao- 


dicea on the Lycus, to a Jewish 
source. 

2 Acts ii. ro. 

3 See p. 4. 

# Acts xvi. 14. Is there an allusion 
to this branch of trade in the message 
to the Church of Laodicea, Rev. iii. 17 
ov oldas dre od ef 6...yuuvds* oupBov- 
AeUw gor ayopdoa... iudria evKa Wa 
mepiBarn, K.7.\.? The only other of the 
seven messages, which contains an 
allusion to the white garments, is ad- 
dressed to the Church of Sardis, where 
again there might be a reference to the 
Bapya Zapdiavixov (Arist. Pax 1174, 
Acharn, 112) and the gowkldes Dapdia- 
vixal (Plato Com. in Athen. 11. p. 48 £) 
of the comic poets. 

5 Talm. Rabl. Sabbath 147 b, quoted 
by Neubauer La Géographie du Talmud 
p- 317: see Wiesner Schol. zum Babyl. 
Talm. p. 259 8q., and p. 207 sq. On — 
the word translated ‘baths,’ see Rapo- 
port’s Erech Millin p. 113, col. 1. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 23 


There is no ground for supposing that, when St Paul wrote St Paul 
his Epistle to the Colossians, he had ever visited the church aaa 
in which he evinces so deep an interest. Whether we ex- eat 
amine the narrative in the Acts, or whether we gather up wrote. 
the notices in the epistle itself, we find no hint that he had 
ever been in this neighbourhood; but on the contrary some 
expressions indirectly exclude the suppbdsition of a visit to the 
district. 

It is true that St Luke more than once mentions Phrygia What is 

’ meant by 
as lying on St Paul’s route or as witnessing his labours. parygia'in 
But Phrygia was a vague and comprehensive term; nor can St Luke? 
we assume that the valley of the Lycus was intended, unless 
the direction of his route or the context of the narrative dis- 
tinctly points to this south-western corner of Phrygia. In 
neither of the two passages, where St Paul is stated to have 
travelled through Phrygia, is this the case. 

I. On his second missionary journey, after he has revisited 1.StPaul’s 
and confirmed the churches of Pisidia and Lycaonia founded venue 
on his first visit, he passes through ‘the Phrygian and Galatian ae ee 
country’. I have pointed out elsewhere that this expression ary jour- 
must be used to denote the region which might be called in- ai 
differently Phrygia or Galatia—the land which had originally 
belonged to the Phrygians and had afterwards been colonised 
by the Gauls; or the parts of either country which lay in the 
immediate neighbourhood of this debatable ground*. This 
region lies considerably north and east of the valley of the 
Lycus. Assuming that the last of the Lycaonian and Pisidian 
towns at which St Paul halted was Antioch, he would not 
on any probable supposition approach nearer to Colosse than 
Apamea Cibotus on his way to ‘the Phrygian and Galatian 


country,’ nor indeed need he have gone nearly so far west- 


1 Acts xvi. 6 riv @pvylav cal Tada- iii. 1 ris “Irovpalas xa Tpaxwvlridos 
Tixhy xdpav, the correct reading. For xdépas, Acts xiii. 14’Avrioyecay rv Tioe- 
this use of pvylavy as an adjective diay (the correct reading). 
comp. Mark i. § raca % Iovéala xdpa, 2 See Galatians, p. 18 8q., 22. 

Joh. iii. 22 els rhv "Iovdalay viv, Luke 


24 


2. Hisvisit 


on his 
third mis- 
sionary 
journey. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


ward as this. And again on his departure from this region 
he journeys by Mysia to Troas, leaving ‘ Asia’ on his left hand 
and Bithynia on his.right. Thus the notices of his route con- 
spire to show that his path on this occasion lay far away from 
the valley of the Lycus. 

2. But if he was not brought into the neighbourhood 
of Colosse on his second missionary journey, it is equally 
improbable that he visited it on his third. So far as regards 
Asia Minor, he seems to have confined himself to revisiting 
the churches already founded ; the new ground which he broke 
was in Macedonia and Greece. Thus when we are told that 
during this third journey St Paul after leaving Antioch ‘ passed 
in order through the Galatian country and Phrygia, confirm- 
ing all the disciples’? we can hardly doubt that ‘the Galatian 
country and Phrygia’ in this latter passage denotes essentially 
the same region as ‘the Phrygian and Galatian country’ in 
the former. The slight change of expression is explained by 
the altered direction of his route. In the first instance his 
course, as determined by its extreme limits—Antioch in Pisidia 
its starting-point, and Alexandria Troas its termination— 
would be northward for the first part of the way, and thus 
would lie on the border land of Phrygia and Galatia; whereas 
on this second occasion, when he was travelling from Antioch 
in Syria to Ephesus, its direction would be generally from 
east to west, and the more strictly Galatian district would 
be traversed before the Phrygian. If we suppose him to leave 
Galatia at Pessinus on its western border, he would pass 
along the great highway—formerly a Persian and at this 
time a Roman road—by Synnada and Sardis to Ephesus, 
traversing the heart of Phrygia, but following the valleys of 
the Hermus and Cayster, and separated from the Meander 
and Lycus by the high mountain ranges which bound these 
latter to the north’. 

1 Acts xviii, 23. St Paul and St Luke is not the country 


2 M. Renan (Saint Paul pp. 51 8q., properly so called, but that they are 
126, 313) maintains that the Galatia of | speaking of the Churches of Pisidian 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


Thus St Luke’s narrative seems to exclude any visit o 


the Apostle to the Churches of the Lycus before his first 


Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, 
which lay within the Roman province of 
Galatia. This interpretation of Gala- 
tia necessarily affects his view of St 
Paul’s routes (pp. 126 8q., 331 8q.); and 
he supposes the Apostle on his third 
missionary journey to have passed 
through the valley of the Lycus, with- 
out however remaining to preach the 
Gospel there (pp. 331 8q-, 356 8q., 362). 
As Antioch in Pisidia would on this 
hypothesis be the farthest church in 
‘Galatia and Phrygia’ which St Paul 
visited, his direct route from that city 
to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 23, xix. 1) 
would naturally lie by this valley. I 
have already (Galatians pp. 18 8q., 22) 
stated the serious objections to which 
this interpretation of ‘Galatia’ is open, 
and (if I mistake not) have answered 
most of M. Renan’s arguments by an- 
ticipation. But, as this interpretation 
nearly affects an important point in 
the history of St Paul’s dealings with 
the Colossians, it is necessary to sub- 
ject it to a closer examination. 

Without stopping to enquire whe- 
ther this view is reconcilable with St 
Paul’s assertion (Col. ii. 1) that these 
churches in the Lycus valley ‘had not 
seen his face in the flesh,’ it will ap- 
pear (I think) that M. Renan’s argu- 
ments are in some cases untenable and 
in others may be turned against him- 
self. The three heads under which 
they may be conveniently considered 
are: (i) The use of the name ‘ Galatia’; 
(ii) The itinerary of St Paul’s travels ; 
(iii) The historical notices in the Epis- 
tle to the Galatians. 

(i) On the first point, M. Renan 
states that St Paul was in the habit of 
using the official name for each dis- 
trict, and therefore called the country 
which extends from Antioch in Pisidia 


to Derbe ‘Galatia,’ supporting this 
view by the Apostle’s use of Asia, 
Macedonia, and Achaia (p. 51). The 
answer is that the names of these 
elder provinces had very generally su- 
perseded the local names, but this was 
not the case with the other districts of 
Asia Minor where the provinces had 
been formed at a comparatively late 
date. The usage of St Luke is a 
good criterion. He also speaks of 
Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia; but at 
the same time his narrative abounds 
in historical or ethnographical names 
which have no official import; e.g. 
Lycaonia, Mysia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, 
Phrygia. Where we have no evidence, 
it is reasonable to assume that St 
Paul’s usage was conformable to St 
Luke’s. And again, if we consider 
St Luke’s account alone, how insu- 
perable are the difficulties which this 
view of Galatia creates. The part of 
Asia Minor, with which we are imme- 
diately concerned, was comprised offi- 
cially in the provinces of Asia and 
Galatia. On M. Renan’s showing, St 
Luke, after calling Antioch a city of 
Pisidia (xiii. 14) and Lystra and Derbe 
cities of Lycaonia (xiv. 6), treats all 
the three, together with the interme- 
diate Iconium, as belonging to Galatia 
(xvi. 6, xviii. 23). He explains the in- 
consistency by saying that in the former 
case the narrative proceeds in detail, 
in the latter in masses. But if so, 
why should he combine a historical 
and ethnological name Phrygia with 
an official name Galatia in the same 
breath, when the two are different in 
kind and cannot be mutually exclusive? 
‘Galatia and Asia,’ would be intelligi- 
ble on this supposition, but not ‘Ga- 
latia and Phrygia.’ Moreover the very 
form of the expression in xvi. 6, ‘the 


25 


f The infer- 


ence from 


26 


St Luke’s 
narrative 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


Roman captivity. And this inference is confirmed by St Paul’s 


own language to the Colossians. 


Phrygian and Galatian country’ (ac- 
cording to the correct reading which 
M. Renan neglects), appears in its stu- 
died vagueness to exclude the idea that 
St Luke means the province of Gala- 
tia, whose boundaries were precisely 
marked. And even granting that the 
Christian communities of Lycaonia 
and Pisidia could by a straining of 
language be called Churches of Gala- 
tia, is it possible that St Paul would 
address them personally as ‘ye fool- 
ish Galatians’ (Gal. iii. 1)? Such lan- 
guage would be no more appropriate 
than if a modern preacher in a fami- 
liar address were to appeal to the 
Poles of Warsaw as ‘ye Russians,’ or 
the Hungarians of Pesth as ‘ye Aus- 
trians,’ or the Irish of Cork as ‘ye 
Englishmen.’ 

(ii) In the itinerary of St Paul 
several points require consideration. 
(2) M. Renan lays stress on the fact 
that in Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23, the order 
in which the names of Phrygia and 
Galatia occur is inverted. I seem to 
myself to have explained this satisfac- 
torily in the text. He appears to be 
unaware of the correct reading in xvi, 
6, Thv Ppvyiav kal Tadarixhy xwpav 
(see Galatians p. 22), though it has an 
important bearing on St Paul’s proba- 
ble route. (6) He states that Troas 
was St Paul’s aim (‘Vobjectif de Saint 
Paul’) in the one case (xvi. 6), and 
Ephesus in the other (xviii. 23): con- 
sequently he argues that Galatia, pro- 
perly so called, is inconceivable, as 
there was no reason why he should 
have made ‘this strange detour to- 
wards the north.’ The answer is that 
Troas was not his ‘objectif’ in the 
first instance, nor Ephesus in the 
second. On the first occasion St Luke 
states that the Apostle set out on his 


journey with quite different intentions, 
but that after he had got well to the 
north of Asia Minor he was driven by a 
series of divine intimations to proceed 
first to Troas and thence to cross over 
into Europe (see Philippians p. 48). 
This narrative seems to me to imply 
that he starts for his further travels 
from some point in the western part 
of Galatia proper. When he comes to 
the borders of Mysia, he designs bear- 
ing to the left and preaching in Asia; 
but a divine voice forbids him. He 
then purposes diverging to the right 
and delivering his message in Bithynia; 
but the same unseen power checks him 
again, Thus heis driven forward, and 
passes by Mysia to the coast at Troas 
(Acts xvi. 6—8). Here all is plain, 
But if we suppose him to start, not from 
some town in Galatia proper such as 
Pessinus, but from Antioch in Pisidia, 
why should Bithynia, which would be 
far out of the way, be mentioned at 
all? On the second occasion, St Paul’s 
primary object is to revisit the Gala- 
tian Churches which he had planted 
on the former journey (xviii. 23), and 
it is not till after he has fulfilled this 
intention that he goes to Ephesus. 
(c) M. Renan also calls attention to 
the difficulty of traversing ‘the central 
steppe’ of Asia Minor, ‘There was 
probably,’ he says, ‘at this epoch no 
route from Iconium to Ancyra,’ and in 
justification of this statement he re- 
fers to Perrot, de Gal. Rom. prov. p. 
102,103. Hven so, there were regular 
roads from either Iconium or Antioch 
to Pessinus; and this route would serve 
equally well. Moreoverthe Apostle, who 
was accustomed to ‘perils of rivers, 
perils of robbers, perils in the wilder- 
ness’ (2 Cor. xi. 26), and who preferred 
walking from Troas to Assos (Acts xx. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 27 


He represents his knowledge of their continued progress, ee ous 


and even of their first initiation, in the truths of the Gospel, Paul’sowa 
as derived from the report of others. He describes himself gay 


13) while his companions sailed, would 
not be deterred by any rough or un- 
frequented paths. But the facts ad- 
duced by Perrot do not lend them- 
selyes to any such inference, nor does 
he himself draw it. He cites an in- 
scription of the year a.p. 82 which 
speaks of A. Cesennius Gallus, the 
legate of Domitian, as a great road- 
maker throughout the Eastern pro- 
vinces of Asia Minor, and he suggests 
that the existing remains of a road be- 
tween Ancyra and Iconium may be 
part of this governor’s work. Even if 
the suggestion be adopted, it is highly 
improbable that no road should have 
existed previously, when we consider 
the comparative facility of construct- 
ing a way along this line of country 
(Perrot p. 103) and the importance of 
such a direct route. (d) ‘In the con- 
ception of the author of the Acts,’ 
writes M. Renan, ‘the two journeys 
across Asia Minor are journeys of con- 
firmation and not of conversion (Acts 
XV. 36, 41, Xvi. 5, 6, xviii. 23).’ This 
statement seems to me to be only 
partially true. In both cases St Paul 
begins his tour by confirming churches 
already established, but in both he 
advances beyond this and breaks new 
ground. In the former he starts with 
the existing churches of Lycaonia and 
Pisidia and extends his labours to 
Galatia: in the latter he starts with 
_ the then existing churches of Galatia, 
and carries the Gospel into Macedonia 
and Achaia. This, so far as I can dis- 
cover, was his general rule. 

(iii) The notices in the Galatian 
Epistles, which appear to M. Renan to 
favour his view, are these: (a) St Paul 
appears to have ‘had intimate rela- 
tions with the Galatian Church, at 


least as intimate as with the Corinth- 
ians and Thessalonians,’ whereas St 
Luke disposes of the Apostle’s preaching 
in Galatia very summarily, unless the 
communities of Lycaonia and Pisidia 
be included. But the Galatian Epis- 
tle by no means evinces the same 
close and varied personal relations 
which we find in the letters to these 
other churches, more especially to the 
Corinthians. And again; St Luke’s 
history is more or less fragmentary. 
Whole years are sometimes dismissed 
in a few verses. The stay in Arabia 
which made so deep an impression on 
St Paul himself is not even mention- 
ed: the three months’ sojourn in 
Greece, though doubtless full of stir- 
ring events, only occupies a single 
verse in the narrative (Acts xx. 3). 
St Luke appears to have joined St 
Paul after his visit to Galatia (xvi. 10); 
and there is no reason why he should 
have dwelt on incidents with which he 
had no direct acquaintance. (b) M. 
Renan sees in the presence of emis- 
saries from Jerusalem in the Galatian 
Churches an indication that Galatia 
proper is not meant. ‘It is improba- 
ble that they would have made such a 
journey.’ But why so? There were 
important Jewish settlements in Gala- 
tia proper (Galatians p. 9 8q.); there 
was a good road through Syria and 
Cilicia to Ancyra (Itin. Anton. p. 205 8q., 
Itin. Hierosol. p. 575 sq. ed. Wessel.) ; 
and if we find such emissaries as far 
away from Jerusalem as Corinth (2 Cor. 
xi. 13, etc.), there is at least no impro- 
bability that they should have reached 
Galatia. (c) Lastly; M. Renan thinks 
that the mention of Barnabas (Gal. ii. 
I, 9, 13) implies that he was person- 
ally known to the churches addressed, 


28 


Silence of 
St Paul. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


as hearing of their faith in Christ and their love to the saints’. 
He recals the day when he first heard of their Christian pro- 
fession and zeal*. Though opportunities occur again and again 
where he would naturally have referred to his direct personal 
relations with them, if he had been their evangelist, he abstains 
from any such reference. He speaks of their being instructed 
in the Gospel, of his own preaching the Gospel, several times 
in the course of the letter, but he never places the two in 
any direct connexion, though the one reference stands in the 
immediate neighbourhood of the other®, Moreover, if he had 
actually visited Colosse, it must appear strange that he should 
not once allude to any incident occurring during his sojourn 
there, for this epistle would then be the single exception to 
his ordinary practice. And lastly; in one passage at least, if 
interpreted in its natural sense, he declares that the Colossians 
were personally unknown to him: ‘I would have you know, 
he writes, ‘how great a conflict I have for you and them that 
are in Laodicea and as many as have not seen my face in the 
flesh*,’ 


and therefore points to Lycaonia and 
Pisidia, But are we to infer on the 
same grounds that he was personally 
known to the Corinthians (1 Cor. ix. 6), 
and to the Colossians (Col. iv. 10)? In 
fact the name of Barnabas, as a fa- 
mous Apostle and an older disciple even 
than St Paul himself, would not fail to 
be well known in all the churches. 
On the other hand one or two notices 
in the Galatian Epistle present serious 
obstacles to M. Renan’s view. What 
are we to say for instance to St Paul’s 
statement, that he preached the Gos- 
pel in Galatia 8” do®éveray ris oupKds 
(iv. 13), i.e. because he was detained by 
sickness (see Galatians pp. 23 8q.,172), 
whereas his journey to Lycaonia and 
Pisidia is distinctly planned with a 
view to missionary work? Why again 
is there no mention of Timothy, who 
was much in St Paul’s company about 


this time, and who on this showing was 
himself a Galatian? Some mention 
would seem to be especially suggested 
where St Paul is justifying his conduct 
respecting the attempt to compel Titus 
to be circumcised. 

1 Col. i. 4. 

2 i. g did Tobro Kal jets, dd’ 7s hue- 
pas hKkovoaper, ov mavoueda K.T.A. This 
corresponds to ver. 6 KaOws kal év dur, 
ad’ fs tuépas jKovcate kal éréyvwre 
tiv xdpw Tod Oecd év ddnOelg. The 
day when they first heard the preach- 
ing of the Gospel, and the day when 
he first heard the tidings of this fact, 
are set against each other. 

3 e.g. i, 5—8, 21—23, 25, 28, 29. 
ii. 5: Os 

4 ii, 1 0é\w ydp vuds elddvar HAlKov 
dyava exw vrep vudv kal rav év Aaodc- 
kela Kal Soo ovx éewpaxav TO mpoowmor 
pou év capkl, Wa mapaxrAnddow al Kap- 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 29 


But, if he was not directly their evangelist, yet to him Epaphras 
they were indirectly indebted for their knowledge of the truth. anual 
Epaphras had been his delegate to them, his representative sea 
in Christ. By Epaphras they had been converted to the Gos- 
pel. This is the evident meaning of a passage in the open- 
ing of the epistle, which has been much obscured by misreading 
and mistranslation, and which may be paraphrased thus: ‘The 
Gospel, which has spread and borne fruit throughout the rest 
of the world, has been equally successful among yourselves, 

This fertile growth has been manifested in you from the first 
day when the message of God’s grace was preached to you, 
and accepted by you—preached not as now with adulterations 
by these false teachers, but in its genuine simplicity by Epa- 
phras our beloved fellowservant ; he has been a faithful minister 
of Christ and a faithful representative of us, and from him we 


have received tidings of your love in the Spirit’ 


Slat avrav, cumBiBacbevres x.7.A. The 
question of interpretation is whether 
the people of Colosse and Laodicea 
belong to the same category with the 
Sco, or not. The latter view is taken 
by one or two ancient interpreters 
(e.g. Theodoret in his introduction to 
the epistle), and has been adopted by 
several modern critics. Yet it is op- 
posed alike to grammatical and-logical 
considerations. (1) The grammatical 
form is unfavourable; for the preposi- 


tion Jzép is not repeated, so that all. 


the persons mentioned are included 
under a vinculum. (2) No adequate 
sense can be extracted from the pas- 
sage, 80 interpreted. For in this case 
what is the drift of the enumeration? 


If intended to be exhaustive, it does 


not fulfil the purpose; for nothing is 
said of others whom he had seen be- 
sides the Colossians and Laodiceans. 
If not intended to be exhaustive, it is 
meaningless; for there is no reason 
why the Colossians and Laodiceans 


‘verat quos ante non viderat.’ 


especially should be set off against 
those whom he had not seen, or in- 
deed why in this connexion those whom 
he had not seen should be mentioned 
at all. The whole context shows that 
the Apostle is dwelling on his spiritual 
communion with and interest in those 
with whom he has had no personal com- 
munications. St Jerome (Ep. cxxx. ad 
Demetr. § 2) has rightly caught the 
spirit of the passage; ‘Ignoti ad ig- 
notam scribimus, dumiaxat juxta fa- 
ciem corporalem. Alioquin interior 
homo pulcre sibi cognitus est illa 
notitia qua et Paulus apostolus Co- 
lossenses multosque credentium no- 
For 
parallels to this use of xal Sool, see 
the note on the passage. 

13.6 é& ravrl 7@ Koouw éorly Kap- 
mogopovmevoy Kal avéavouevov, Kabws Kal 
év vuiv, ad’ js hucpas jeovoare xal 
éréyvure Thy xdpw Tod Oeod év ddnOelg, 
Kaus éuddere dwo Emagppé rod ayarn- 
TOU guvdovAov huay, os éorw motos 


30 


St Paul’s 
residence 


atEphesus We have no direct information. 


instru- 
mental in 
their con- 
version. 


A.D. 
54—57- 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOUS. 


How or when the conversion of the Colossians took place, 
Yet it can hardly be wrong 
to connect the event with St Paul’s long sojourn at Ephesus. 
Here he remained preaching for three whole years. It is 
possible indeed that during this period he paid short visits to 
other neighbouring cities of Asia: but if so, the notices in the 
Acts oblige us to suppose these interruptions to his residence 
in Ephesus to have been slight and infrequent’, Yet, though 
the Apostle himself was stationary in the capital, the Apostle’s 
influence and teaching spread far beyond the limits of the city 
and its immediate neighbourhood. It was hardly an exag- 
geration when Demetrius declared that ‘almost throughout 
all Asia this Paul had persuaded and turned away much 
people.’ The sacred historian himself uses equally strong 
language in describing the effects of the Apostle’s preaching ; 
‘All they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, 
both Jews and Greeks*’ In accordance with these notices 
the Apostle himself in an epistle written during this sojourn 
sends salutations to Corinth, not from the Church of Ephesus 
specially, as might have been anticipated, but from the 


urép tua duKxoros Tod Xpicrov, 6 cat 
Syrdoas Huiv Thy Ymov dyarny év mrev- 
part. 

The various readings which obscure 
the meaning are these. (i) The re- 
ceived text for xaOws éuddere has xa0ws 
kal éuddere. With this reading the 
passage suggests that the instructions 
of Epaphras were superadded to, and 
so distinct from, the original evangeli- 
zation of Colossss ; whereas the correct 
text identifies them. (ii) For vrép judy 
the received reading is uUrép vpur. 
Thus the fact that St Paul did not 
preach at Coloss# in person, but 
through his representative, is obliterat- 
ed. In both cases the authority for 
the readings which I have adopted 
against the received text is over- 
whelming. 

The obscurity of rendering is in 


Kaas [kal] éuddere dro ’Eradgpéa, trans- 
lated in our English Version by the 
ambiguous expression, ‘as ye also 
learned of Epaphras.’ The true force 
of the words is, ‘ according as ye were 
taught by Epaphras,’ being an ex- 
planation of év d\nOelg. See the notes 
on the passage. 

1 See especially xx. 18 ‘Ye know, 
from the first day when I set foot on 
Asia, how I was with you all the time,’ 
and ver. 31 ‘For three years night and 
day I ceased not warning every one 
with tears.’ As it seems necessary to 
allow for a brief visit to Corinth (2 Cor. 
xii. 14, Xlil. 1) during this period, other 
interruptions of long duration should 
not be postulated. 

2 Acts xix. 26. 

3 Acts xix. 10. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 31 


‘Churches of Asia’ generally’. St Luke, it should be ob- 
served, ascribes this dissemination of the Gospel, not to jour- 
neys undertaken by the Apostle, but to his preaching at Ephe- 
sus itself*. hither, as to the metropolis of Western Asia, 
would flock crowds from all the towns and villages far and near. 
Thence they would carry away, each to his own neighbour- 
hood, the spiritual treasure which they had so unexpectedly 
found. 

Among the places thus represented at the Asiatic metro- Close alli- 
polis would doubtless be the cities lying in the valley of the pcan 
Lycus. The bonds of amity between these places and Ephesus eens 
appear to have been unusually strong. The Concord of the 
Laodiceans and Ephesians, the Concord of the ‘Hierapolitans 
and Ephesians, are repeatedly commemorated on medals struck 
for the purpose*, Thus the Colossians, Epaphras and Phile- The work 
mon, the latter with his household‘, and perhaps also the pene sad 
Laodicean Nymphas’, would fall in with the Apostle of the S7™phas 
Gentiles and hear from his lips the first tidings of a heavenly 
life. 

But, whatever service may have been rendered by Philemon but especi- 
at Colosse, or by Nymphas at Laodicea, it was to Epaphras pei 
especially that all the three cities were indebted for their 
knowledge of the Gospel. Though he was a Colossian by birth, 
the fervency of his prayers and the energy of his love are re- 
presented as extending equally to Laodicea and Hierapolis*. 

It is obvious that he looked upon himself as responsible for 
the spiritual well-being of all alike. 


1 y Cor. xvi. 19 domdtovrar vuds al 
éxxAnolac ris ’Acias. In accordance 
with these facts it should benoticed that 
St Paul himself alluding to this period 
speaks of ‘Asia,’ as the scene of his 
ministry (2 Cor. i. 8, Rom. xvi. 5). 

? Acts xix. ro ‘disputing daily in 
the School of Tyrannus ; and this con- 
tinued for two years, so that all they 
which dwelt in Asia, etc,’ 

* AAOAIKEMN . EECION . OMO- 
NOId, Eckhel mz. p. 165, Mionnet 1v. 


P. 324, 325, 33%, 332, Suppl. vil. p. 
583, 586, 589; IEPATTOAEITON . EE- 
CIWN . OMONOIA, Eckhel 11. p. 155, 
157, Mionnet Iv. p. 299, 300, 307, 
Suppl. vil. p. 569, 571, 572) 574) 575+ 
See Steiger Kolosser p. 50, and comp. 
Krause Civitat. Neocor. § 20. 

4 Philem. 1, 2, 19. 

5 Col. iv. 15. On the question 
whether the name is Nymphas or 
Nympha, see the notes there. 

6 iv. 12, 13 


52 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


St Paul We pass over a period of five or six years. St Paul’s 
ea first captivity in Rome is now drawing to a close. During 
raged this interval he has not once visited the valley of the Lycus. 
He has, it is true, skirted the coast and called at Miletus, 
which lies near the mouth of the Meander; but, though the 
elders of Ephesus were summoned to meet him there’, no 


mention is made of any representatives from these more dis- 


tant towns. 
His I have elsewhere described the Apostle’s circumstances 
ment at uring his residence in Rome, so far as they are known to 


Rome. us* It is sufficient to say here, that though he is still a 
prisoner, friends new and old minister freely to his wants. 
Meanwhile the alienation of the Judaic Christians is complete. 
Three only, remaining faithful to him, are commemorated as 
honourable exceptions in the general desertion’. 

Colosss We have seen that Colosse was an unimportant place, and 

brought that it had no direct personal claims on the Apostle. We 


notice by might therefore feel surprise that, thus doubly disqualified, 

dents. | it should nevertheless attract his special attention at a critical 
moment, when severe personal trials were superadded to ‘the 
care of all the churches. But two circumstances, the one 
affecting his public duties, the other private and personal, 
happening at this time, conspired to bring Colosse prominently 
before his notice. 

1. The 1. He had received a visit from EPAPHRAS. The dangerous 

alee condition of the Colossian and neighbouring churches had 
filled the mind of their evangelist with alarm. A strange 
form of heresy had broken out in these brotherhoods—a com- 
bination of Judaic formalism with Oriental mystic specula- 
tion—and was already spreading rapidly. His distress was 
extreme. He gratefully acknowledged and reported their faith 
in Christ and their works of love*. But this only quickened 


his anxiety. He had ‘much toil for them’; he was ‘ever 


1 Acts xx. 16, 17. 8 Col. iv. 10, 11. See Philippians 
2 See Philippians p. 6 sq. p- 17 8q. i Oe ns 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 33 


wrestling in his prayers on their behalf,” that they might 
stand fast and not abandon the simplicity of their earlier faith’. 
He came to Rome, we may suppose, for the express purpose 
of laying this state of things before the Apostle and seeking his 
counsel and assistance. 

2. But at the time when Epaphras paid this visit, St Paul, owzsr- 
was also in communication with another Colossian, who had vitiv Ag 
visited Rome under very different circumstances. ONESIMUS, Rome. 
the runaway slave, had sought the metropolis, the common 
sink of all nations*, probably as a convenient hiding place, 
where he might escape detection among its crowds and make 
a livelihood as best he could. Here, perhaps accidentally, 
perhaps through the intervention of Epaphras, he fell in with 
his master’s old friend. The Apostle interested himself in his 
case, instructed him in the Gospel, and transformed him from a 
good-for-nothing slave * into a ‘faithful and beloved brother “’ 

This combination of circumstances called the Apostle’s at- qn, Ren 
tention to the Churches of the Lycus, and more especially to ens 
Colosse. His letters, which had been found ‘weighty and three let- 
powerful’ in other cases, might not be unavailing now; and seer) 
in this hope he took up his pen. Three epistles were written 
and despatched at the same time to this district. 

I. He addresses a special letter to the COLOSSIANS, written 1. The 
in the joint names of himself and Timothy, warning them papi 
against the errors of the false teachers. He gratefully ac- yaa 
knowledges the report which he has received of their love 
and zeal®’. He assures them of the conflict which agitates 
him on their behalf*. He warns them to be on their guard 
against the delusive logic of enticing words, against the vain 


deceit of a false philosophy’. The purity of their Christianity The thco- 


; . logical and 
is endangered by two errors, recommended to them by their the pestis: 
: : : cal error of 
heretical leaders—the one theological, the other practical— th. Gotos. 
sians, 
ATV, 12; 13. 4 Col. iv. 9; comp. Philem. 16. 
2 Tac. Ann. Xv. 44. 5 i. 3—9, 21 8q, 
3 Philem. 11 ry aord cou dxpnorov © anor sq. 
K.T.A. 7 Me 45'S) 1Ss 


COL. 3 


34 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


but both alike springing from the same source, the conception 
of matter as the origin and abode of evil. Thus, regarding 
God and matter ‘as directly antagonistic and therefore apart 
from and having no communication with each other, they sought 
to explain the creation and government of the world by inter- 
posing a series of intermediate beings, emanations or angels, 
to whom accordingly they offered worship. At the same time, 
since they held that evil resided, not in the rebellious spirit of 
man, but in the innate properties of matter, they sought to 
overcome it by a rigid ascetic discipline, which failed after all 
The pro. to touch the springs of action. As both errors flowed from the 
veto Same source, they must be corrected by the application of the 
Eeyilee same remedy, the Christ of the Gospel. In the Person of Christ, 
Christ of the one mediator between heaven and earth, is the true solution 
st gi of the theological difficulty. Through the Life in Christ, the 
purification of the heart through faith and love, is the effectual 
triumph over moral evil” St Paul therefore prescribes to 
the Colossians the true teaching of the Gospel, as the best anti- 
dote to the twofold danger which threatens at once their theo- 
References logical creed and their moral principles; while at the same 
ee time he enforces his lesson by the claims of personal affection, 
appealing to the devotion of their evangelist Epaphras on 

their behalf”. 
Of Epaphras himself we know nothing beyond wae tew but 
significant notices which connect him with Colosse*. He did 
not return to Colossz as the bearer of the letter, but remained 


1 i, 1—20, ii. 9, iil. 4. Tho two 
threads are closely interwoven in St 
Paul’s refutation, as these references 
will show. The connexion of the two 
errors, a8 arising from the same false 
principle, will be considered more in 
detail in the next chapter. 

24. 9, IV. 12s 

3 For the reasons why Epaphras 
cannot be identified with Epaphrodi- 
tus, who is mentioned in the Phi- 
lippian letter, see Philippians p. 61, 


note 4. The later tradition, which 
makes him bishop of Colossz, is doubt- 
less an inference from St Paul’s lan- 
guage and has no independent value. 
The further statement of the martyr- 
ologies, that he suffered martyrdom 
for his flock, can hardly be held to 
deserve any higher credit. His day is 
the 19th of July in the Western 
Calendar. His body is said to lie in 
the Church of S. Maria Maggiore at 
Rome. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 35 


behind with St Paul’. As St Paul in a contemporary epistle 
designates him his fellow-prisoner*, it may be inferred that 
his zeal and affection had involved him in the Apostle’s cap- 
tivity, and that his continuance in Rome was enforced. But 
however this may be, the letter was placed in the hands of 
Tychicus, a native of proconsular Asia, probably of Ephesus ®, Tychicus 


; : Sy he Pern ke . .,. and Onesi- 
who was entrusted with a wider mission at this time, and in its mus ac- 


discharge would be obliged to visit the valley of the Lycus* ppmpey. 
At the same time he was accompanied by Onesimus, whom the 
Colossians had only known hitherto as a worthless slave, but 

who now returns to them with the stamp of the Apostle’s warm 
approval, St Paul says very little about himself, because 
Tychicus and Onesimus would be able by word of mouth to 
communicate all inforination to the Colossians®, But he sends The salu- 
one or two salutations which deserve a few words of explana~ ‘°° 
tion, Epaphras of course greets his fellow-townsmen and 
children in the faith. Other names are those of Aristarchus 

the Thessalonian, who had been with the Apostle at Ephesus® 

and may possibly have formed some personal connexion with 

the Colossians at that time: Mark, against whom apparently 

the Apostle fears that a prejudice may be entertained (perhaps 

the fact of his earlier desertion, and of St Paul’s dissatisfaction 

in consequence’, may have been widely known), and for whom 
therefore he asks a favourable reception at his approaching 

visit to Colossz, according to instructions which they had already 
received; and Jesus the Just, of whose relations with the 


1 Col. iv. 12. 

2 Philem. 23 6 cuvaryuddrwrdbs pov. 
The word may possibly have a meta- 
phorical sense (see Philippians p. 11); 
but the literal meaning is more proba- 
ble. St Jerome on Philem. 23 (vit. p. 
762) gives the story that St Paul’s 
parents were natives of Giscala and, 
when the Romans invaded and wasted 
Judea, were banished thence with their 
sonto Tarsus. He adds that Epaphras 
may have been St Paul’s fellow- 


prisoner at this time, and have been 
removed with his parents to Colossa. 
It is not quite clear whether this 
statement respecting Epaphras is part 
of the tradition, or Jerome’s own con- 
jecture appended to it. 

3 Acts xx. 4, 2 Tim. iv. 12, 

4 See below, p. 37. 

5 Col. iv. 7—9. 

6 Acts xix. 29. 

7 Acts xiii. 13, XV. 37—39. 


5 eae 


36 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS, 


Colossians we know nothing, and whose ouly claim to a men- 
tion may have been his singular fidelity to the Apostle at a 
critical juncture. Salutations moreover are added from Luke 
and from Demas; and here again their close companionship 
with the Apostle is, so far as we know, the sole cause of their 
names appearing *. 

Charge re- | Lastly, the Laodiceans were closely connected with the 

ppecting Colossians by local and spiritual ties. To the Church of Lao- 
dicea therefore, and to the household of one Nymphas who 
was a prominent member of it, he sends greeting. At the 
same time he directs them to interchange letters with the 
Laodiceans; for to Laodicea also he had written. And he 
closes his salutations with a message to Archippus, a resident 
either at Colosse or at Laodicea (for on this point we are left 
to conjecture), who held some important office in the Church, 
and respecting whose zeal he seems to have entertained a 
misgiving *. 

olaten 2. But, while providing for the spiritual welfare of the 

rales To whole Colossian Church, he did not forget the temporal inter- 
‘ests of its humblest member. Having attended to the soli- 
citations of the evangelist Epaphras, he now addressed himself to 
the troubles of the runaway slave Onesimus. The mission of 
Tychicus to Colosse was a favourable opportunity of restoring 
him to Philemon; for Tychicus, well known as the Apostle’s 
friend and fellow-labourer, might throw the shield of his pro- 
tection over him and avert the worst consequences of Phile- 
mon’s anger. But, not content with this measure of precaution, 
the Apostle himself writes to PHILEMON on the offender’s be- 
half, recommending him as a changed man’, and claiming for- 
giveness for him as a return due from Philemon to himself as to 
his spiritual father *. 

The salutations in this letter are the same as those in 

the Epistle to the Colossians with the exception of Jesus 


1 Col. iv. 1o—r14. 8 Philem. 11, 16. 
2 iv. 15—17. * ver. 19. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


Justus, whose name is omitted’, Towards the close St Paul 
declares his hope of release and intention of visiting Colosse, 
and asks Philemon to ‘ prepare a lodging’ for him *. 


37 


3. But at the same time with the two letters destined espe- 3. The 


cially for Colosse, the Apostle despatched a third, which had 
a wider scope. It has been already mentioned that Tychicus 


was charged with a mission to the Asiatic Churches. It has sent to 
LaopIcea. 


been noticed also that the Colossians were directed to procure 
and read a letter in the possession of the Laodiceans. These 
two facts are closely connected. The Apostle wrote at this 
time a circular letter to the Asiatic Churches, which got 
its ultimate designation from the metropolitan city and is 
consequently known to us as the Epistle to the EPHEsIANS®. 
It was the immediate object of Tychicus’ journey to deliver 
copies of this letter at all the principal centres of Christi- 
anity in the district, and at the same time to communicate 
by word of mouth the Apostle’s special messages to each *. 
Among these centres was Laodicea. Thus his mission brought 
him into the immediate neighbourhood of Colosse. But he 
was not charged to deliver another copy of the circular letter 
at Colossze itself, for this Church would be regarded only as 
a dependency of Laodicea; and besides he was the bearer of 
a special letter from the Apostle to them. It was sufficient 
therefore to provide that the Laodicean eopy should be circu- 
lated and read at Colossz. 


CrRcuLaR 
Letter, of 
which a, 


Thus the three letters are closely related. Tychicus is the Personal 


personal link of connexion between the Epistles to the Ephe- 
sians and to the Colossians; Onesimus between those to the 
Colossians and to Philemon. 

For reasons given elsewhere’, it would appear that these 
three letters were written and despatched towards the close of 
the Apostle’s captivity, about the year 63. At some time not 


1 VV. 23, 24. 5 See Philippians p. 30 sq.; where 
2 ver. 22. reasons are given for placing the 
8 See the introduction to the epis- Philippian Epistle at an earlier, and 
tle. the others at a later stage in the 


# Ephes, vi. 21, 22. Apostle’s captivity. 


§ Ccon- 


the three 


38 


Earth- 
quake in 
the Lycus 
Valley. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


very distant from this date, a great catastrophe overtook the 
cities of the Lycus valley. An earthquake was no uncommon 


occurrence in this region’. 


But on this occasion the shock had 


been unusually violent, and Laodicea, the fourishing and popu- 


lous, was laid in ruins. 


Tacitus, who is our earliest authority 


for this fact, places it in the year 60 and is silent about the 


neighbouring towns’. 


1 See above, p. 3. Laodicea was 

visited by the following earthquakes 
in the ages preceding and subsequent 
to the Christian era. 
(1) Before about 3B.c. 125, Orac. 
Sibyll. iii. 471, if the date now com- 
monly assigned to this Sibylline Oracle 
be correct, and if the passage is to be 
regarded as a prophecy after the event. 
In iii. 347 Hierapolis is also mentioned 
as suffering in the same way; but it 
may be questioned whether the Phry- 
gian city is meant. 

(2) About B.c. 12, Strabo xii. 8,p. §79, 
Dion Cass, liv.30. Strabo names only 
Laodicea and Tralles, but Dion Cas- 
sius says 7 ’Acla 7rd @Ovos ézixouplas 
Twos id cercpuovs pddiora €delTo. 

(3) 4D. 60 according to Tacitus 
(Ann. xiv. 27); a.D. 64 or 65 according 
to Eusebius (Chron. s.a.), who includes 
also Hierapolis and Colosse. To this 
earthquake allusion is made in a Sibyl- 
line Oracle written not many years 
after the event; Orac. Sibyll, iv. 107 
(see also v. 289, Vii. 23). 

(4) Between a.p. 222 and A.D. 235, 
in the reign of Alexander Severus, as 
we learn from another Sibylline Oracle 
(xii. 280). On this occasion Hierapolis 
also suffered. 

This list. will probably be found not 
to have exhausted all these catastro- 
phes on record. 

The following earthquakes also are 
mentioned as happening in the neigh- 
bouring towns or in the district gene- 
rally: at an uncertain date, Carura 
(Strabo xii. 8 p. 578); a.p. 17 the 


Eusebius however makes it subse- 


twelve cities, Sardis being the worst 
sufferer (Tac. Ann. ii. 7, Plin. NV. H. 
ii. 86, Dion Cass. lvii. 17, Strabo xii. 
8, p. 579); A.D. 23 Cibyra (Tac. Ann. 
iv. 13); A.D. 53 Apamea (Tac. Ann. 
xii. 58): about a.D. 138—142, under 
Antoninus Pius, ‘Rhodiorum et Asie 
oppida’ (Capitol. Anton. Pius 9g, Aristid. 
Or. xliv); A.D. 151 or 152, under the 
same emperor, Mitylene and other 
places (Aristid. Or. xxv); A.D. 180, 
under M. Aurelius, Smyrna (Chron. 
Pasch, 1. p. 489, ed. Dind., Aristid. Or. 
xx, xxi, xli; see Clinton Fast. Rom. 1. 
p. 176 sq., Hertzberg Griechenland cic. 
II. pp. 371, 410, and esp. Waddington 
Mémoire sur la Chronologie du Rhéteur 
Ailius Aristide pp. 242 sq., 267, in 
Mém. de VAcad. des Inscr. xxv1, 1867, 
who has corrected the dates); A.D. 262, 
under Gallienus 11 (Trebell. Gallien. 5 
‘Malum tristius in Asie urbibus fvit 
...hiatus terre plurimis in locis fue- 
runt, cum aqua salsa in fossis appa- 
reret,’ io. 6 ‘vastatam Asiam...elemen- 
torum concussionibus’). Strabo says 
(p. 579) that Philadelphia is more or 
less shaken daily (xaé’ judpav), and 
that Apamea has suffered from nu- 
merous earthquakes. 

2 Tac, Ann. xiv. 27 ‘Hodem anno 
ex inlustribus Asiw urbibus Laodicea, 
tremore terre prolapsa, nullo a nobis 
remedio propriis opibus revaluit.’ The 
year is given ‘Nerone iv, Corn. Cosso 
consulibus’ (xiv. 20). Two different 
writers, in Smith’s Dictionary of Geo- 
graphy and Smith’s Dictionary of the 
Bible, s.v. Laodicea, place the destruc- 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 39 


quent to the burning of Rome (A.D. 64), and mentions Hiera- ” arg 
polis and Colossze also as involved in the disaster’; while later ee 
writers, adopting the date of Eusebius and including the three 

cities with him, represent it as one of a series of divine judg- 

ments on the heathen world for the persecution of the Chris- 

tians which followed on the fire’. Having no direct knowledge 

of the source from which Eusebius derived his information, we 

should naturally be disposed to accept the authority of Tacitus 

for the date, as more trustworthy. But, as indications occur 
elsewhere that Eusebius followed unusually good authorities in 
recording these earthquakes *, it is far from improbable that he 


tion of Laodicea in the reign of Tibe- 
rius, confusing this earthquake with 
an earlier one (Ann. ii. 47). By this 
earlier earthquake ‘duodecim celebres 
Asis urbes conlapse,’ but their names 
are given, and not one is situated in 
the valley of the Lycus. 

1 Euseb. Chron. Ol. 210 (1. p. 154 
6q., ed. Schéne) ‘In Asia tres urbes 
terre motu conciderunt Laodicea Hie- 
rapolis Colosse.? The Armenian ver- 
sion and Jerome agree in placing it 
the next event in order after the fire 
at Rome (4.D. 64), though there is a 
difference of a year in the two texts. 
If the Sibylline Oracle, v. 317, refers to 
this earthquake, as seems probable, 
we have independent testimony that 
Hierapolis was involved in the cata- 
strophe; comp. ib. v. 289. 

2 This is evidently the idea of Oxo- 
sius, Vil. 7. 

3 I draw this inference from his 
account of the earthquake in the reign 
of Tiberius. Tacitus (Ann. ii. 47) states 
that twelve cities were ruined in one 
night, and records their names, Pliny 
also, who mentions this earthquake as 
‘the greatest within the memory of 
man’ (N. H. ii. 86), gives the same 
number. Eusebius however, Chron. 
Ol. 198 (11. p. 146 sq., ed. Schéne), 
names thirteen cities, coinciding with 


Tacitus as far as he goes, but including 
Ephesus also. Now a monument was 
found at Puteoli (see Gronoyv. Thes. 
Grec. Ant. VII. p. 433 8q.), and is now 
in the Museum at Naples (Museo 
Borbonico xv, Tay. iv, v), dedicated 
to Tiberius and representing fourteen 
female figures with the names of four- 
teen Asiatic cities underneath ; these 
names being the same as those men- 
tioned by Tacitus with the addition of 
Ephesus and Cibyre. There can be 
no doubt that this was one of those 
monuments mentioned by Apollonius 
quoted in Phlegon (Fragm. 42, Miiller’s 
Fragm. Hist. Grec. 111. p. 621) as 
erected to commemorate the liberality 
of Tiberius in contributing to the re- 
svoration of the ruined cities (see Eckhel 
Doct. Num. Vet. v1. 192 sq.). But no 
earthquake at Ephesus is mentioned 
by Tacitus. He does indeed speak of 
such a catastrophe as happening at 
Cibyra (Ann. iv. 13) six years later 
than the one which ruined the twelve 
cities, and of the relief which Tiberius 
afforded on this latter occasion as on 
the former. But we owe to Eusebius 
alone the fact that Ephesus also was 
seriously injured by an earthquake in 
the same year—perhaps not on the 
same night—with the twelve cities: 
and this fact is neccessary to explain 


40 


Bearing on 
the chron- 
ology of 
these let- 
ters. 


St Mark’s 
intended 
visit. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOUS. 


gives the correct date’. In this case the catastrophe was sub- 
sequent to the writing of these letters. If on the other hand 
the year named by Tacitus be adopted, we gain a subsidiary 
confirmation of the comparatively late date which I have ven- 
tured to assign to these epistles on independent grounds; for, 
if they had been written two years earlier, when the blow was 
recent, we might reasonably have expected to find some refer- 
ence to a disaster which had devastated Laodicea and from 
which Colossze cannot have escaped altogether without injury. 
The additional fact mentioned by the Roman historian, that 
Laodicea was rebuilt from her own resources without the usual 
assistance from Rome’, is valuable as illustrating a later notice 
in the Apostolic writings *. 

It has been seen that, when these letters were written, 
St Mark was intending shortly to visit Colosse, and that the 
Apostle himself, looking forward to his release, hoped at length 
to make a personal acquaintance with these churches, which 
hitherto he knew only through the report of others. Whether 
St Mark’s visit was ever paid or not, we have no means of 


determining *. 


the monument. It should be added 
that Nipperdey (on Tac. Ann. ii. 47) 
supposes the earthquake at Ephesus 
to have been recorded in the lost por- 
tion of the fifth book of the Annals 
which comprised the years A.D. 29—31; 
but this bare hypothesis cannot out- 
weigh the direct testimony of Huse- 
bius. 

1 Hertzberg (Geschichte Griechen- 
lands unter der Herrschaft der Romer 
11. p. 96) supposes that Tacitus and Eu- 
sebius refer to two different events, 
and that Laodicea was visited by earth- 
quakes twice within a few years, A.D. 
60 and A.D. 65. 

2 Tac, Ann. xiv. 27, quoted above, 
p. 38, note 2. To this fact allusion is 
made in the feigned prediction of the 
Sibyllines, iv. 107 TAjpor Aaodlkea, oé 
6¢ tpwoe more cetouds mpynrléas, orjoe 


Of St Paul himself it is reasonable to assume, 


6é wad wékw evpudyuay, where orice 
must be the 2nd person, ‘ Thou wilt re- 
build thy city with its broad streets.’ 
This Sibylline poem was written about 
the year 80. The building of the amphi- 
theatre, mentioned above (p. 6, note6), 
would form part of this work of recon- 
struction. 

3 See below, p. 43. 

4 Two notices however imply that 
St Mark had some personal connexion 
with Asia Minor in the years imme- 
diately succeeding the date of this re- 
ference: (1) St Peter, writing to the 
Churches of Asia Minor, sends a salu- 
tation from St Mark (1 Pet. v. 13); 
(2) St Paul gives charge to Timothy, 
who appears to be still residing at 
Ephesus, to take up Mark and bring 
him to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11 Mdpxoy 
dvakaBav aye wera ceavrod). Thus it 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 4I 


that in the interval between his first and second Roman cap- St Paul 
tivity he found some opportunity of carrying out his design. he ag 
At all events we find him at Miletus, near to the mouth of ©l0ss#. 
the Mzander*: and the journey between this place and Lao- 

dicea is neither long nor difficult. 

At the time of this visit—the first and last, we may 
suppose, which he paid to the valley of the Lycus—St Paul’s 
direction of the Asiatic Churches is drawing to a close. With St John 
his death they pass into the hands of St John’, who takes up ly 
his abode in Asia Minor. Of Colossee and Hierapolis we hear 
nothing more in the New Testament: but from his exile in 
Patmos the beloved disciple delivers his Lord’s message to the The mes- 
Church of Laodicea*; a message doubtless intended to be pete 
communicated aiso to the two subordinate Churches, to which 
it would apply almost equally well. 

The message communicated by St John to Laodicea pro- Corres- 
longs the note which was struck by St Paul in the letter to Seika 
Colossee. An interval of a very few years has not materially Lebo eg 
altered the character of these churches. Obviously the same nae 
temper prevails, the same errors are rife, the same correction. ; 
must be applied. 

1. Thus, while St Paul finds it necessary to enforce the 1. The 
truth that Christ is the image of the invisible God, that in {one of 
Him all the divine fulness dwells, that He existed before all] of Christ, 
things, that through Him all things were created and in Him 


all things are sustained, that He is the primary source (dpyy) 


seems fairly probable that St Mark’s 
projected visit to Colosse was paid. 

1 2 Tim. iv. 20. By a strange error 
Lequien (Oriens Christ. 1. p. 833) 
substitutes Hierapolis for Nicopolis in 
Tit. ili, 12, and argues from the pas- 
sage that the Church of Hierapolis 
was founded by St Paul. 

2 It was apparently during the in- 
terval between St Paul’s first captivity 
at Rome and his death, that St Peter 
wrote to the Churches of Asia Minor 
(1 Pet. i. 1). ‘Whether in this interval 


he also visited personally the districts 
evangelized directly or indirectly by 
St. Paul, we have no means of deciding. 
Such a visit is far from unlikely, but 
it can hardly have been of long dura- 
tion. A copy of his letters would pro- 
bably be sent to Laodicea, as a prin- 
cipal centre of Christianity in Pro- 
consular Asia, which is among the 
provinces mentioned in the address of 
the First Epistle. 
3 Rev. iii. 14—21. 


42 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


and has the pre-eminence in all things’; so in almost identical 
language St John, speaking in the person of our Lord, declares 
that He is the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the primary 
source (apyn) of the creation of God*, Some lingering shreds 
of the old heresy, we may suppose, still hung about these 
Churches, and instead of ‘holding fast the Head’ they were 
even yet prone to substitute intermediate agencies, angelic 
mediators, as links in the chain which should bind man to 
God. They still failed to realise the majesty and significance, 
the completeness, of the Person of Christ. 

and prac- And the practical duty also, which follows from the recog- 

pean nition of the theological truth, is enforced by both Apostles 

gs upon in very similar language. If St Paul entreats the Colossians 
to seek those things which are above, where Christ is seated on 
the right hand of God’, and in the companion epistle, which 
also he directs them to read, reminds the Churches that 
God raised them with Christ and seated them with him in 
heavenly places in Christ Jesus*; in like manner St John 
gives this promise to the Laodiceans in the name of his Lord: 
‘He that overcometh, I will grant to him to sit with me in my 
throne, even as I also overcame and did sit with my Father in 
His throne®! 

2, Warn- 2. But again; after a parting salutation to the Church of 

ingagainst T aodicea St Paul closes with a warning to Archippus, ap- 


lukewarm- 
ness. parently its chief pastor, to take heed to his ministry®, Some 


1 Col. i. 15—18. 

2 Rey. iii, 14. It should be ob- 
served that this designation of our 
Lord (7 dpxh ris Krloews Tod Geot), 
which so closely resembles the lan- 
guage of the Colossian Epistle, does 
not occur in the messages to the other 
six Churches, nor do we there find 
anything resembling it. 

9 Cole uit.ar: 

4 Ephes. ii. 6 cuvryyeipev Kal ouve- 
Kadicev K.T.d. 


5 Rev. iii, 21 dow atrd xabloa 


per €uod, x.7.X. Here again it must 
be noticed that there is no such re- 
semblance in the language of the 
promises to the faithful in the other 
six Churches. This double coinci- 
dence, affecting the two ideas which 
may be said to cover the whole ground 
in the Epistle to the Colossians, can 
hardly, I think, be fortuitous, and 
suggests an acquaintance with and 
recognition of the earlier Apostle’s 
teaching on the part of St John, 
@ Col.avs Ty: 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


signs of slackened zeal seem to have called forth this rebuke. 
It may be an accidental coincidence, but it is at least worthy 
of notice, that lukewarmness is the special sin denounced in 
the angel of the Laodiceans, and that the necessity of greater 
earnestness is the burden of the message to that Church’, As 
with the people, so it is with the priest. The community takes 
its colour from and communicates its colour to its spiritual 
rulers. The ‘be zealous’ of St John is the counterpart to the 
‘take heed’ of St Paul. 


3. Lastly; in the Apocalyptic message the pride of wealth 3. The 


is sternly condemned in the Laodicean Church: ‘For that thou 


pride of 
wealth de- 


sayest I am rich and have gotten me riches and have need nounced. 


of nothing, and knowest not that thou art utterly wretched 
and miserable and beggarly and blind and naked, I counsel 
thee to buy gold of me refined with fire, that thou mayest 
have riches” This proud vaunt receives its best illustration 
from a recent occurrence at Laodicea, to which allusion has 
already been made. Only a very few years before this date an 
earthquake had laid the city in ruins. Yet from this catastrophe 


she rose again with more than her former splendour. This The vaunt 


however was not her chief title to respect. While other cities 
prostrated by a like visitation, had sought relief from the con- 
_ cessions of the Roman senate or the liberality of the emperor’s 
purse, it was the glory of Laodicea that she alone neither 
courted nor obtained assistance, but recovered by her own 
resources. ‘Nullo a nobis remedio, says the Roman his- 
torian, ‘propriis opibus revaluit®.’ Thus she had asserted a 
proud independence, to which neither far-famed metropolitan 
Ephesus, nor old imperial Sardis, nor her prosperous commer- 


1 Rev. iii. 19. If the common view, 
that by the angel of the Church its 
chief pastor is meant, were correct, and 
if Archippus (as is very probable) had 
been living when St John wrote, the coin- 
cidence would be still more striking; see 
Trench’s Epistles to the Seven Churches 
in Asia p. 180. But for reasons given 
elsewhere (Philippians p. 199 sq.), this 


interpretation of the angels seems to 
me incorrect, 

2 Rev. iii. 17, 18, where the correct 
reading with the repetition of the 
definite articles, 6 radaimwpos kal 6 
é\ewds, signifies the type, the em- 
bodiment of wretchedness, etc. 

3 Tac. Ann, XIV. 27. 


of Laodi- 
» cea. 


Pride of 
intellectu- 
al wealth. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


cial neighbours, Apamea and Cibyra, could lay claim’. No 
one would dispute her boast that she ‘had gotten riches and 
had need of nothing.’ 

But is there not a second and subsidiary idea underlying 
the Apocalyptic rebuke? The pride of intellectual wealth, 
we may well suspect, was a temptation at Laodicea hardly less 
strong than the pride of material resources. When St Paul 
wrote, the theology of the Gospel and the comprehension of 
the Church were alike endangered by a spirit of intellectual 
exclusiveness’ in these cities. He warned them against a vain 
philosophy, against a show of wisdom, against an intrusive 
mystic speculation, which vainly puffed up the fleshly mind*® 
He tacitly contrasted with this false intellectual wealth ‘the 
riches of the glory of God’s mystery revealed in Christ‘, the 
riches of the full assurance of understanding, the genuine trea- 
sures of wisdom and knowledge’. May not the same contrast 
be discerned in the language of St John? The Laodiceans 
boast of their enlightenment, but they are blind, and to cure 
their blindness they must seek eye-salve from the hands of the 
great Physician. They vaunt their wealth of knowledge, but 
they are wretched paupers, and must beg the refined gold of 
the Gospel to relieve their wants®. 

This is the last notice in the Apostolic records relating to 
the Churches in the valley of the Lycus; but during the suc- 
ceeding ages the Christian communities of this district play 
a conspicuous part in the struggles and the development of the 
Church. When after the destruction of Jerusalem St John 


1 In all the other cases of earth- 
quake which Tacitus records as hap- 
pening in these Asiatic cities, Ann. 
ii. 47 (the twelve cities), iv. 13 (Ci- 
byra), xii. 58 (Apamea), he mentions 
the fact of their obtaining relief from 
the Senate or the Emperor. On an 
earlier occasion Laodicea herself had 
not disdained under similar circum- 
stances to receive assistance from Au- 
gustus: Strabo, xii. p. 579. 


2 See the next chapter of this intro- 
duction. 

3 Col. ii. 8, 18, 23. 

41. 24. 

dig Bae Pe 

§ Comp. Eph. i. 18 ‘The eyes of 
your understanding being enlightened, 
that ye may know what is the hope 
of his calling, what the riches of the 
glory of his inheritance in the saints.’ 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 45 


fixed his abode at Ephesus, it would appear that not a few of The early 
eis oe disciples 

the oldest surviving members of the Palestinian Church ac- settle in 

companied him into ‘Asia,’ which henceforward became the }raca 

head-quarters of Apostolic authority. In this body of emi- 

grants Andrew* and Philip among the twelve, Aristion and 

John the presbyter? among other personal disciples of the 

Lord, are especially mentioned. 

Among the chief settlements of this Christian dispersion was and espe- 
Hierapolis. This fact explains how these Phrygian Churches Harpe. 
assumed a prominence in the ecclesiastical history of the second 1s 
century, for which we are hardly prepared by their antecedents 


as they appear in connexion with St Paul, and which they 


failed to maintain in the history of the later Church. 
Here at all events was settled Philip of Bethsaida*, the 


1 Canon Murator. fol. 1, 1. 14 (p. 17, 
ed. Tregelles), Cureton’s Ancient Sy- 
riac Documents pp. 32, 34. Comp. 
Papias in Euseb. H. £. iii. 39. 

2 Papias in Kuseb. H. EL. iii. 39. 

3 Polycrates in EKuseb. H. £. iii. 31, 
‘vy. 24 Piturrop [roy] TGv Sdexa dro- 
oTéAwy, Os Kexolunrat év ‘Iepamo)er, 
kat Ovo Ouyarépes avrou yeynpaxvias 
mapbévot, Kal 9 érépa avrov Ouvyarnp év 


ayly mvedmare wodwtTevoapévn, 9 ev 
"Edéow dvaraverat. To this third 


daughter the statement of Clement of 
Alexandria must refer, though by a 
common looseness of expression he 
uses the plural number (Euseb. H. E. 
iii. 30) 9 Kal rods drooToXOUs dmodo- 
Kydoovor’ Ilérpos pév yap kal Pidurmos 
éraooroijoavro, Pidummos 6é Kal Tos 
Ovyarépas avipaow e&édwxe. On the 
other hand in the Dialogue between 
Gaius and Proclus, Philip the Evan- 
gelist was represented as residing at 
Hierapolis (Huseb. H. EZ. iii. 31) pera 
tourov O€ mpopirides réooapes al Pl- 
Aummov yeyevnvra év ‘leparoder TH Kara 
tiv Acta 6 rddos adra&y éariv éxe?, Kat 
6 Tov marpds a’Tay, where the mention 
of the four daughters prophesying iden- 


tifies the person meant (see Acts xxi. 
8). Nothing can be clearer than that 
St Luke distinguishes Philip the Evan- 
gelist from Philip the Apostle; for 
(1) When the Seven are appointed, he 
distinctly states that this new office 
is created to relieve the Twelve of some 
onerous duties (Acts vi. 2—s). (2) Af- 
ter Philip the Evangelist has preached 
in Samaria, two of the Twelve are sent 
thither to convey the gifts of the Spirit, 
which required the presence of an 
Apostle (viii. 14—~17). (3) When St 
Paul and his companions visit Philip 
at Cesarea, he is carefully described 
as ‘the Evangelist, being one of the 
Seven’ (xxi. 8). As St Luke was a 
member of the Apostle’s company 
when this visit was paid, and stayed 
‘many days’ in Philip’s house, the 
accuracy of his information cannot be 
questioned. Yet Eusebius (H. Z. ‘iii. 
31) assumes the identity of the Apostle 
with the Evangelist, and describes the 
notice in the Dialogue of Gaius and 
Proclus as being ‘in harmony with 
(cvvgdwvr)’ the language of Polycrates, 
And accordingly in another passage 
(H. E, iii. 39), when he has occasion 


46 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


Philip the early friend and fellow-townsman of St John, and the first 
Apostle who is recorded to have held communication with 


Apostle 
with his 
daughters, 


the Gentiles’. 


to mention the conversations of Panias 
with Philip’s daughters at Hierapolis, 
he again supposes them to be the same 
who are mentioned in the Acts. 

My reasons for believing that the 
Philip who lived at Hierapolis was not 
the Evangelist, but the Apostle, are as 
follows. (1) This is distinctly stated 
by the earliest witness, Polycrates, 
who was bishop of Ephesus at the 
close of the second century, and who 
besides claimed to have and probably 
had special opportunities of knowing 
early traditions, It is confirmed more- 
over by the notice in Clement of 
Alexandria, who is the next in order 
of time, and whose means of infor- 
mation also were good, for one of 
his earliest teachers was an Ionian 
Greek (Strom. I. 1, p. 322). (2) The 
other view depends solely on the au- 
thority of the Dialogue of Gaius and 
Proclus. I have given reasons else- 
where for questioning the separate ex- 
istence of the Roman presbyter Gaius, 
and for supposing that this dialogue 
was written by Hippolytus bishop of 
Portus (Journal of Philology 1. p. 98 
sq., Cambridge, 1868). But however 
this may be, its author was a Roman 
ecclesiastic, and probably wrote some 
quarter of a century at least after 
Polycrates. In all respects therefore 
his authority is inferior. Moreover 
it ig suspicious inform. It mentions 
four daughters instead of three, makes 
them all virgins, and represents them 
as prophetesses, thus showing a dis- 
tinct aim of reproducing the particu- 
lars as given in Acts xxi. 9; whereas 
the account of Polycrates is divergent 
in all three respects. (3) A life-long 
friendship would naturally draw Philip 
the Apostle of Bethsaida after John, 


Here he died and was buried; and here after 


as it also drew Andrew. And, when 
we turn to St John’s Gospel, we can 
hardly resist the impression that inei- 
dents relating to Andrew and Philip 
had a special interest, not only for 
the writer of the Gospel, but also for 
his hearers (John i, 40, 43—46, Vi. 
5—8, xii. 20—22, xiv. 8, 9). ‘Moreover 
the Apostles Andrew and Philip appear 
in this Gospel as inseparable com- 
panions, (4) Lastly; when Papias men- 
tions collecting the sayings of the 
Twelve and of other early disciples 
from those who heard them, he gives 
a prominent place to these two Apos- 
tles rt ’Avipéas ... elev 9 Tl Pidurros, 
but there is no reference to Philip the 
Evangelist. When therefore we read 
later that he conversed with the 
daughters of Philip, it seems natural 
to infer that the Philip intended is 
the same person whom he has men- 
tioned previously. It should be added, 
though no great value can be assign- 
ed to such channels of information, 
that the Acts of Philip place the 
Apostle at Hierapolis; Tischendorf, 
Act. Apost. Apocr. p. 75 8q. 

On the other hand, those who sup- 
pose that the Evangelist, and not 
the Apostle, resided at Hierapolis, ac- 
count for the other form of the tra- 
dition by the natural desire of the 
Asiatic Churches to trace their spiritual 
descent directly fromthe Twelve. This 
solution of the phenomenon might have 
been accepted, if the authorities in 
favour of Philip the Evangelist had 
been prior in time and superior in 
quality. There is no improbability 
in supposing that both the Philips 
were married and had daughters. 

1 John xii. 20. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOCUS. 


his decease lived his two virgin daughters, who survived to a 
very advanced age and thus handed down to the second century 
the traditions of the earliest days of the Church. A third 
daughter, who was married, had settled in Ephesus, where 


47 


her body rested*, It was from the two daughters who resided Their tra. 


at Hierapolis, that Papias heard several stories of the first 


collected 


preachers of the Gospel, which he transmitted to posterity in by Papias. 


his work’. 

This Papias had conversed not only with the daughters 
of Philip, but also with at least two personal disciples of the 
Lord, Aristion and John the presbyter. He made it his busi- 
ness to gather traditions respecting the sayings of the Saviour 
and His Apostles; and he published a work in five books, 
entitled An Exposition of Oracles of the Lord, using the 
information thus collected to illustrate the discourses, and 
perhaps the doings, of Christ as recorded in the Gospels*. 
Among other stories he related, apparently on the authority 
of these daughters of Philip, how a certain dead man had 
been restored to life in his own day, and how Justus Barsabas, 
who is mentioned in the Acts, had drunk a deadly poison and 


miraculously escaped from any evil effects‘. 


1 See above p. 45, note 3. 

2 Huseb. H. E£. iii. 39. This is the 
general reference for all those particu- 
lars respecting Papias which are de- 
rived from Eusebius. 

3 See Westcott, Canon p. 63. On 
the opinions of Papias and on the 
nature of his work, I may perhaps be 
allowed to refer to articles in the 
Contemporary Review Aug. 1867, Aug. 
and Sept. 1875, where I have investi- 
gated the notices of this father. The 
object of Papias’ work was not to con- 
struct a Gospel narrative, but to in- 
terpret and illustrate those already 
existing. I ought to add that on two 
minor points, the martyrdom of Papias 
and the identity of Philip with the Evan- 
gelist, I have been led to modify my 
views since the first article was written. 


* Kusep. I. c. ds 52 card rods adrovs 
6 Tlamlas yevduevos duiyynow mapedy- 
gévar Gavuaclay bwd [d7d?] raev Tov 
Dilrrov Ovyarépwv pvynpovevter, Ta viv 
onuelwTéov’ vexpov yap dvdoracw Kar’ 
adrov yeyovuiay lorope?, kal ad mddw 
€repov mapddotov epi lotcroy rov émt- 
k\nbévra BapoaBav yeyovbs x.7.A. The 
information respecting the raising of 
the dead man might have come from 
the daughters of Philip, as the context 
seems certainly to imply, while yet the 
event happened in Papias’ own time 
{xar’ atrév). It will be remembered 
that even Ireneus mentions similar 
miracles as occurring in his own age 
(Her. ii. 32. 4). Eusebius does not 
say that the miraculous preservation 
of Justus Barsabas also occurred in 
the time of Papias. 


48 


Life and 
teaching 
of Papras. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


If we may judge by his name, PAPIAS was a native of 
Phrygia, probably of Hierapolis’, of which he afterwards be- 
came bishop, and must have grown up to youth or early man- 


hood before the close of the first century. 


He is said to have 


suffered martyrdom at Pergamum about the year 165; but 
there is good reason for distrusting this statement, independ- 


ently of any chronological difficulty which it involves’. 


1 Papias, or (as it is very frequently 
written in inscriptions) Pappias, is a 
common Phrygian name. It is found 
several times at Hierapolis, not only 
in inscriptions (Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 
no. 3930, 3912 a add.) but even on 
coins (Mionnet rv. p. 301). This is 
explained by the fact that it was 
an epithet of the Hierapolitan Zeus 
(Boeckh 3817 Ilamtg Act cwrfpr), jusi as 
in Bithynia this same god was called 
IIdras (Liobeck Aglaoph. p. 1048; see 
Boeckh Corp. Inscr. Il. p. 1051). 
Hence as the name of a mortal it is 
equivalent to the Greek Diogenes ; e.g. 
Boeckh no. 3912 a add., Iazias rot 
Xrpdrwvos 6 karovpevos Aroyévns. Galen 
also mentions a physician of Laodicea, 
bearing this name (Op. x11. p. 799, ed. 
Kiihn). In an inscription at Tra- 
janopolis we meet with it in a curious 
conjunction with other familiar names 
(Boeckh no, 3865 iadd.) Ilarmlas Tpo- 
gluov Kal Tuxixfs 7.A. (see Wad- 
dington on Le Bas, Inscr. no, 718). 
This last belongs to the year A.D. 199. 
On other analogous Phrygian names 
see the introduction to the Epistle to 
Philemon. 

Thus at Hierapolis the name Papias 
is derived from heathen mythology, 
and accordiugly the persons bearing it 
on the inscriptions and coins are all 
heathens. It may therefore be pre- 
sumed that our Papias was of Gentile 
origin. The inference however is not 
absolutely certain. A rabbi of this 
name is mentioned in the Mishna 
Shekalim iv. 7, Edaioth vii. 6. These 


Other- 


two references are given by Zunz Namen 
der Juden p. 16. 

2 Chron. Pasch. sub. ann. 163 ody 
73 ayly 5é TlodvKdprw@ Kal ddror 0’ dro 
Diradergelas waptupovow ev Duvpvy’ kat 
év Tlepyduw 68 érepor, év ofs qv cai Ia- 
mlas kat dAdo woNdol, wy Kal &yypada 
gépovrae Ta papripia. See also the 
Syrian epitome of Euseb, Chron. (1. 
p. 216 ed. Schdne) ‘Cum persecutio in 
Asia esset, Polycarpos martyrium subiit 
et Papias, quorum martyria in libro 
(scripta) extant,’ but the Armenian 
version of the Chronicon mentions only 
Pelycarp, while Jerome says ‘ Poly- 
carpus et Pionius fecere martyrium.’ 
In his history (iv. 15) Eusebius, after 
quoting the Martyrdom of Polycarp at 
length, adds év rij airq de wept adrov 
ypapp kal dAAa mapTipia cuvqrro 
.-. wed Gy Kal Mnrpdbdwpos ... dvipyrac 
Tu ye why Té6TE TeptBonTwY papTopwv ets 
tis éypwplfero Iedvios... qs dé Kat 
d\Nwv év Ilepydup moder THs Actas brro- 
pojpara peuaptupnkbrwy péperat, Kap- 
mov kal Ilamvdov kal yuvaKos ’Aya- 
Govixns x.t.’. He here apparently falls 
into the error of imagining that Metro- 
dorus, Pionius, Carpus, Papylus, and 
the others were martyred under M. 
Aurelius, whereas we know from their 
extant Acts that they suffered in the 
Decian persecution. For the Martyr- 
doms of Pionius and Metrodorus see 
Act. SS. Bolland. Feb. 1; for those of 
Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonica, ib. 
April 13. The Acts of the former, 
which are included in Ruinart (Act. 
Sinc. Mart. p. 120 8q., 1689) are appa- 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 49 
wise he must have lived to a very advanced age. Eusebius, to Account of 
Eusebius. 


whom chiefly we owe our information respecting him, was 
repelled by his millennarian views, and describes him as a man 
of mean intelligence’, accusing him of misunderstanding the 
Apostolic sayings respecting the kingdom of Christ and thus 
interpreting in a material sense expressions which were intended 
to be mystical and symbolical. This disparaging account, 
though one-sided, was indeed not altogether undeserved, for 
his love of the marvellous seems to have overpowered his 
faculty of discrimination. But the adverse verdict of Eusebius 
must be corrected by the more sympathetic language of Ire- 
nzus’, who possibly may have known him personally, and who 
certainly must have been well acquainted with his reputation 
and character. 

Much has been written respecting the relation of this 
writer to the Canonical Gospels, but the discussion has no very 
direct bearing on our special subject, and may be dismissed 
here*. One question however, which has a real importance 


rently the same which were seen by 
Eusebius. Those of the latter are a 
late compilation of the Metaphrast, 
but were perhaps founded on the 
earlier document. At all events the 
tradition of the persecution in which 
they suffered could hardly have heen 
perverted or lost, Eusebius seems to 
have found their Acts bound up in the 
same volume with those of Polycarp, 
and without reading them through, to 
have drawn the hasty inference that 
they suffered at the same time. But 
notwithstanding the error, or perhaps 
owing to it, this passage in the Eccle- 
siastical History, by a confusion of the 
names Papias and Papylus, seems to 
have given rise to the statement re- 
specting Papias in the Chronicon Pas- 
chale and in the Syrian epitome, as it 
obviously has misled Jerome respecting 
Pionius. This part of the Chronicon 
Paschale is plainly taken from Eu- 
sebius, as the coincidences of expres- 


CoOL. 


sion and the sequence of events alike 
show. The martyrdom of Papias there- 
fore appears to be a fiction, and he may 
have died a natural death at an earlier 
date. Polycarp’s martyrdom is shown 
by M. Waddington’s investigations to 
have taken place a.p. 155 or 156; see 
Mémoire sur la Chronologie du Rhéteur 
filius Aristide p. 232 8q., in the Mém. 
de V' Acad. des Inscr. xxvt (1867). 

1H. E. iii. 39 ocdpa opixpos rov 
vouv. In another passage (iii. 36), as 
commonly read, Eusebius makes par- 
tial amends to Papias by calling him 
dvip Ta mwavra ore padsora Aoywraros 
kal THs ypapys elijuwy, but this pas- 
sage is found to be a spurious inter- 
polation (see Contemporary Review, 
August, 1867, p.12), and was probably 
added by some one who was acquainted 
with the work of Papias and desired 
to do him justice. 

2 Tren. v. 33. 3, 4 

3 See on this subject Westcott Canon 


4 


50 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


as affecting the progress of the Gospel in these parts, has been 
raised by modern criticism and must not be passed over in 
silence. 
A modern It has been supposed that there was an entire dislocation 
eee, and discontinuity in the history of Christianity in Asia Minor 
erie at a certain epoch; that the Apostle of the Gentiles was 
Aare ignored and his teaching repudiated, if not anathematized; 
discussed. and that on its ruins was erected the standard of Judaism, 
around which with a marvellous unanimity deserters from the 
Pauline Gospel rallied. Of this retrograde faith St John is 
supposed to have been the great champion, and Papias a 
typical and important representative’. 

The subject, as a whole, is too wide for a full investigation 
here. I must content myself with occupying a limited area, 
showing not only the historical baselessness, but the strong 
inherent improbability of the theory, as applied to Hierapolis 
and the neighbouring churches. As this district is its chief 
strong-hold, a repulse at this point must involve its ultimate 
defeat along the whole line. 

The posi- Of St John himself I have already spoken® It has been 
ton Of St shown that his language addressed to these Churches is not 
only not opposed to St Paul’s teaching, but presents remark- 

able coincidences with it. So far at least the theory finds no 
support ; and, when from St John we turn to Papias, the case 

is not different. The advocates of the hypothesis in question 

andof lay the chief stress of their argument on the silence of Papias, 
Papias. or rather of Eusebius. Eusebius quotes a passage from Papias, 
in which the bishop of Hierapolis mentions collecting from 
trustworthy sources the sayings of certain Apostles and early 
disciples; but St Paul is not named among them. He also 

gives short extracts from Papias referring to the Gospels of 

St Matthew and St Mark, and mentions that this writer made 

p. 64.8q.; Contemporary Review, Au- or in Schwegler’s Nachapostolisches 

gust and September, 1875. Zeitalter. It has been reproduced (at 

1 The theory of the Tiibingen school least as far as regards the Asiatic: 


may be studied in Baur’s Christliche Churches) by Renan S. Paul p. 366 sq. 
Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte 2 See above p. 41 sq. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 5! 


use of the first Epistle of St John and the first Epistle of St 
Peter; but here again there is no allusion to St Paul’s writings. 
Whether referring to the personal testimony or to the Canon- 
ical writings of the Apostles, Papias, we are reminded, is 
equally silent about St Paul. 

On both these points a satisfactory answer can be given; 
but the two cases are essentially different, and must be con- 
sidered apart. 

(1) The range of personal testimony which Papias would be ee fc 
able to collect depended on his opportunities. Before he had collected 
grown up to manhood, the personal reminiscences of St Paul ili 
would have almost died out. The Apostle of the Gentiles had 
not resided more than three years even at Ephesus, and seems 
to have paid only one brief visit to the valley of the Lycus, even 
if he visited it at all. Such recollections of St Paul as might 
once have lingered here would certainly be overshadowed by 
and forgotten in the later sojourn of St John, which, beginning 
where they ceased, extended over more than a quarter of a cen- 
tury. To St John, and to those personal disciples of Christ who 
surrounded him, Papias and his contemporaries would naturally 
and almost inevitably look for the traditions which they so 
eagerly collected. This is the case with the leading representa- 
tive of the Asiatic school in the next generation, Irenzus, 
whose traditions are almost wholly derived from St John and 
his companions, while at the same time he evinces an entire 
sympathy with the work and teaching of St Paul. But indeed, 
even if it had been otherwise, the object which Papias had 
directly in view did not suggest any appeal to St Paul’s 
authority. He was writing an ‘ Exposition of Oracles of the 
Lord, and he sought to supplement and interpret these by 
traditions of our Lord’s life, such as eyewitnesses only could 
give. St Paul could have no place among those personal 
disciples of Christ, of whom alone he is speaking in this preface 
to his work, which Eusebius quotes. 

(2) But, though we have no right to expect any mention 2. His re- 
of St Paul where the appeal is to personal testimony, yet with mame 


4—2 


52 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


theCa- quotations from or references to the Canonical writings 

nonical 4 ee 

writings. the case, it may be argued, is different. Here at all events we 
might look for some recognition of St Paul. To this argument 
it would perhaps be a sufficient reply, that St Paul’s Epistles 
do not furnish any matter which must necessarily have been 
introduced into a work such as Papias composed. But the 
complete and decisive answer is this; that the silence of Euse- 
bius, so far from carrying with it the silence of Papias, does not 

No weight even afford a presumption in this direction. Papias may have 

to be at- ° : ° 

tached to quoted St Paul again and again, and yet Eusebius would see 

the silence no yeason to chronicle the fact. His usage in other cases is 

bius, decisive on this point. The Epistle of Polycarp which was 
read by Eusebius is the same which we still possess. Not 
only does it teem with the most obvious quotations from St 
Paul, but in one passage it directly mentions his writing to the 
Philippians’. Yet the historian, describing its relation to the 
Canonical Scriptures, contents himself with saying that it ‘em- 
ploys some testimonies from the former Epistle of Peter*’ 
Exactly similar is his language respecting Irenzus also. Ire- 
nus, as is well known, cites by name almost every one of St 
Paul's Epistles; yet the description which Eusebius gives under 
this same head, after quoting this writer’s notices respecting 
the history of the Gospels and the Apocalypse, is that ‘he 
mentions also the first Epistle of John, alleging very many 
testimonies from it, and in like manner also the former Epistle 
of Peter®’ There is every reason therefore to suppose that 
Eusebius would deal with Papias as he has dealt with Polycarp 


and Irenzus, and that, unless Papias had introduced some 


2 § 3. Polycarp, in which St Paul’s name 
2 H.E. iv. 14 6 yé rot TlodNKapros is mentioned; but the quotation is 
év ri Sn\wOelon pds Siirmyolovs avrod _ brought to illustrate the life of Igna- 
ypady pepouévy els Sedpo xéxpyral tit tius, and the mention of the Apostle 
papruptaus dd ris Tlérpov mporépas éri- _ there is purely accidental. 
orod\js. This is all that Eusebius 3H. E. v. 8 péuynrat 68 xal rhs 
says with reference to Polycarp’s know- “Iwdvvov mpurns émiotodijs, Mapripia ef 
ledge of the Canonical writings. It  aurfs mdetora elopépwr, dpolws 52 nat 
so happens that in an earlier passage fs Ilérpov mporépas. 
(iii. 36) he has given an extract from 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


curious fact relating to St Paul, it would not have occurred 
to him to record mere quotations from or references to this 
Apostle’s letters. It may be supposed that Eusebius records 
with a fair amount of attention references to the Catholic 
Epistles in early writers, because the limits of the Canon in 
this part were not accurately fixed. On the other hand the 
Epistles of St Paul were universally received and therefore 
did not need to be accredited by any such testimony. But 
whatever may be the explanation, the fact is patent, and it 
furnishes a complete answer to the argument drawn from his 
silence in the case of Papias’. 

But, if the assumption has been proved to be baseless, have 
we any grounds for saying that it is also highly improbable ? 
Here it seems fair to argue from the well-known to the un- 
known. Of the opinions of Papias respecting St Paul we know 
absolutely nothing ; of the opinions of Polycarp and Irenzus 
ample evidence lies before us. Noscitur a socits is a sound 
maxim to apply in such a case, Papias was a companion of 
Polycarp, and he is quoted with deference by Irenzus?, Is it 
probable that his opinions should be diametrically opposed to 
those of his friend and contemporary on a cardinal point affect- 
ing the very conception of Christianity (for the rejection of 
St Paul must be considered in this light)? or that this vital 
heterodoxy, if it existed, should have escaped an intelligent 
critic of the next generation who had the five books of his 
work before him, who himself had passed his early life in Asia 


1 It is necessary to press this argu- 
ment, because though it has never been 
answered and (so far as I can see) is 
quite unanswerable, yet thoughtful 
men, who have no sympathy with the 
Ttibingen views of early Christian his- 
tory, still continue to argue from the 
silence of Eusebius, as though it had 
some real significance. To illustrate 
the omissions of Eusebius I have given 
only the instances of Polycarp and 
Irenezus, because they are historically 
connected with Papias; but his silence 


is even more remarkable in other cases. 
Thus, when speaking of the epistle of 
the Roman Clement (H. E. iii. 38), he 
alludes to the coincidences with the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, but omits to 
mention the direct references to St 
Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians 
which is referred to by name. I have 
discussed the whole subject in the 
Contemporary Review, January, 1875, 
Pp. 169 sq. 
2 Tren. Har. v. 33. 4. 


53 


The views 
of Papias 
inferred 


from his 


associates. 


54 


Millenna- 
rian views 
consistent 
with the 
recogni- 
tion of 

St Paul. 


ABERCIUS 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


Minor, and who yet appeals to Papias as preserving the doc- 
trinal tradition which had been handed down from the Apostles 
themselves to his own time? I say nothing of Eusebius himself, 
who, with a distinct prejudice against Papias, accuses him of 
no worse heresy in his writings than entertaining millennarian 
views. 

It may indeed be confessed that a man like Papias, whose 
natural bent, assisted by his Phrygian education, was towards 


sensuous views of religion, would not be likely to appreciate the 
essentially spiritual teaching of St Paul; but this proves nothing. 


The difference between unconscious want of sympathy and con- 
scious rejection is all-important for the matter in hand. The 
same charge might be brought against numberless theologians, 
whether in the middle ages or in more modern times, into whose 
minds it never entered to question the authority of the Apostle 
and who quote his writings with the utmost reverence. Nei- 
ther in the primitive days of Christianity nor in its later 
stages has the profession of Chiliastic views been found in- 
consistent with the fullest recognition of St Paul’s Apostolic 
claims. In the early Church Ireneus and Tertullian are 
notable instances of this combination; and in our own age and 
country a tendency to millennarian speculations has been com- 
monly associated with the staunchest adherence to the funda- 
mental doctrines of St Paul. 

As the successor of Papias and the predecessor of Claudius 
Apollinaris in the see of Hierapolis, we may perhaps name 
ABERCIUS or AvircIUS’ His legendary Acts assign his epi- 


1 The life of this Abercius is print- 
ed in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum 
Oct. 22. It may safely be pronounced 
spurious. Among other incidents, the 
saint goes to Rome and casts out a 
demon from Lucilla, the daughter of 
M. Aurelius and Faustina, at the same 
time compelling the demon to take up 
an altar from Rome and transport it 
through the air to Hierapolis, But 
these Acts, though legendary them- 


selves, contain an epitaph which has 
the ring of genuineness and which 
seems to have suggested the story to 
the pious forger who invented the 
Acts, This very interesting memorial 
is given and discussed at length by 
Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. 111. p. 532 8q. Itis 
inscribed by one Abercius of Hierapolis 
on his tomb, which he erected during 
his life-time. He declares himself a 
disciple of the good shepherd, who 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOUS. 55 


scupate to the reign of Marcus Aurelius; and, though they Probably 
. 1s succes- 

are disfigured by extravagant fictions, yet the date may perhaps gor. 

be accepted, as it seems to be confirmed by other evidence. 


An inscription on his tombstone recorded how he had paid one 


taught him trustworthy writings (ypayu- 
para mord) and sent him to visit 
queenly Rome, where he saw a people 
sealed with the bright seal [of bap- 
tism]. He recounts also a journey to 
Syria and the East, when he crossed 
the Euphrates. He says that faith 
served up to him as a banquet the 
iy8yc from the fountain, giving him 
bread and wine. He states that he 
has reached his 72nd year. And he 
closes by threatening with severe pe- 
nalties those who disturb his tomb. 
The resemblance of this inscription to 
others found in situ in the cemetery at 
Hierapolis, after allowance made for 
the Christian element, is very striking. 
The commencement ’ExXexr#s rodews 
closely resembles the form of another 
Hierapolitan inscription, Boeckh Corp. 
Inser. 3906; the enumeration of fo- 
reign tours has a counterpart in the 
monument of one Flavius Zeuxis which 
states that the deceased had made 72 
voyages round the promontory of Ma- 
lea to Italy (ib. 3920); and lastly, the 
prohibition against putting another 
grave upon his, and the imposition of 
fines to be paid to the treasury and 
the city if this injunction is violated, 
are echos of language which occurs 
again and again on tombstones in this 
city (ib. 3915, 3916, 3922, 3923, etc.). 
Out of this epitaph, which he found 
probably at Hierapolis, and which, as he 
himself tells us (§ 41), was in a much 
mutilated condition, the legend-writer 
apparently created his story, interpret- 
ing the queen, by which Abercius him- 
self probably meant the city of Rome, 
to be the empress Faustina, with whom 
the saint is represented as having an 
interview, M. Aurelius himself being 


absent at the time on his German cam- 
paign. This view, that the epitaph is 
genuine and gave rise to the Acts, is 
also maintained by Garrucci (Civilta 
Cattolica 1856, I. p.683, 11. p.84, quoted 
in the Acta Sanct. 1. ¢.), whose criti- 
cisms however are not always sound; 
and indeed as a whole it bears every 
mark of authenticity, though possibly 
it may contain some interpolations, 
which its mutilated condition would 
encourage. The name Aburcius oc- 
curs in Corp. Inscr. Lat. vi. 127. 

The inscription itself however does 
not tell us what office Abercius held or 
when he lived. There was a person of 
this name, bishop of Hierapolis, present 
at the Council of Chalcedon a.p. 451 
(Labb. Cone. tv. 862, 1204, 1341, 1392, 
1496,1744, ed. Coleti). But achief pastor 
of the Church at this late date would 
have declared hisoffice plainly; and the 
inscription points to a more primitive 
age, for the expressions are archaic and 
the writer seems to veil his profession of 
Christianity under language studiously 
obscure. The open profession of Chris- 
tianity on inscriptions occurs at an 
earlier date in these parts than else- 
where. Already the word yPICTIANOC 
or YPHCTIANOC is found on tomb- 
stones of the third century; Boeckh 
Corp. Inscr. 3857 g, 3857 p, 3865 1; see 
Renan Saint Paul p. 363. Thus we 
are entirely at fault unless we accept 
the statement in the Acts. 

And it is not unreasonable to sup- 
pose that, so far as regards the date 
and office of Abercius, the writer of 
these Acts followed some adequate 
historical tradition. Nor indeed is 
his statement altogether without con- 
firmation. We have evidence that a 


56 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


His jour- visit to the city of Rome, and another to the banks of the 
Euphrates, ‘hese long journeys are not without parallels in 
the lives of contemporary bishops. Polycarp of Smyrna visited 
Rome, hoping to adjust the Paschal controversy; Melito of 


neys. 


person bearing this name lived in these 
parts of Asia Minor, somewhere about 
this time. An unknown writer of a 
polemical tract against Montanism de- 
dicates ‘his work to one Avircius Mar- 
cellus, at whose instigation it was 
written. Eusebius (H. E. v. 16), who 
is our authority for this fact, relates 
that Montanism found a determined 
and formidable opponent in Apollina- 
ris at Hierapolis and ‘several other 
learned men of that day with him,’ 
who left large materials for a his- 
tory of the movement. He then goes 
on to say; dpxduevos yotv THs Kar’ 
atrav ypadas Trav elpnuévwr 64 Tis 
---Tpooudserar...roorov Tov Tpbmov* "Ex 
wrelarov Scov Kal ikavwrdrov xpévou, 
dyamnre ’Aoulpxie Mdpxedde, ércraxdels 
trd cot ovyypdyar Tid Abyov K.T.A., 
i.e. ‘One of the aforesaid writers at 
the commencement of his treatise 
against them (the Montanists) etc.’ 
May not the person here addressed be 
the Abercius of the epitaph? 

But if so, who is the writer that 
addresses him, and when did he live? 
Some mss oxtit 54 71s, and others sub- 
stitute 76, thus making Apollinaris 
himself the writer. But the words 
seem certainly to have been part of 
the original text, as the sense requires 
them; for if they are omitted, ray el- 
pnuévwy must be connected with xar’ 
airav, where it is not wanted. Thus 
Eusebius quotes the writer anony- 
mously; and those who assign the 
treatise to Apollinaris cannot plead 
the authority of the original text of 
the historian himself. 

But after all may it not have been 
written by Apollinaris, though Euse- 


bius was uncertain about the author. 
ship? He quotes in succession three 
ovyypdupara or treatises, speaking of 
them as though they emanated from 
the same author. The first of these, 
from which the address to Avircius 
Marcellus is quoted, might very well 
have been composed soon after the 
Montanist controversy broke out (as 
Eusebius himself elsewhere states was 
the case with the work of Apollinaris, 
iv. 27 Kara ris tTav Ppvydv alpécews 
...aomep éxpiew apxouérvns); but the 
second and third distinctly state that 
they were written some time after the 
death of Montanus. May not Eusé- 
bius have had before him a volume 
containing a collection of tracts against 
Montanism ‘by Claudius Apollinaris 
and others,’ in which the authorship 
of the several tracts was not distinctly 
marked? This hypothesis would ex- 
plain the words with which he pre- 
faces his extracts, and would also ac- 
count for his vague manner of quota- 
tion. It would also explain the omis- 
sion of 6 vis in some texts (the 
ancient Syriac version boldly sub- 
stitutes the name of Apollinaris), and 
would explain how Rufinus, Nicepho- 
rus, and others, who might have had 
independent information, ascribed the 
treatise to this father. I have al- 
ready pointed out how Eusebius was 
led into a similar error of connecting 
together several martyrologies and 
treating them as contemporaneous, be- 
cause they were collected in the same 
volume (p. 48, note 2). Elsewhere 
too I have endeavoured to show that 
he mistook the authorship of a tract 
which was bound up with others, 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


Sardis went as far as Palestine, desiring to ascertain on the 
spot the facts relating to the Canon of the Old Testament 
These or similar motives may have influenced 
If we may assume 


Scriptures. 


Abercius to undertake his distant journeys. 
the identification of this bishop with one Avircius Marcellus 
who is mentioned in a contemporary document, he took an 
active interest in the Montanist controversy, as from his 


position he was likely to do. 


57 


The literary character of the see of Hierapolis, which had Cxauniws 
been inaugurated by Papias, was ably sustained by CLAUDIUS 


APOLLINARIS. 


owing to the absence of a title (Caius 
or Hippolytus? in the Journal of Phi- 
lology 1. p. 98 8q.). 

On this hypothesis, Claudius Apol- 
linaris would very probably be the 
author of the first of these treatises. 
If so, it would appear to have been 
written while he was still a presbyter, 
at the instigation of his bishop Avir- 
cius Marcellus whom he succeeded not 
long after in the see of Hierapolis. 

If on the other hand Eusebius has 
correctly assigned the first treatise to 
the same writer as the second and 
third, who must have written after the 
beginning of the third century, Avir- 
cius Marcellus to whom it is addressed 
cannot have held the see of Hierapolis 
during the reign of M. Aurelius (a.D. 
161—180); and, if he was ever bishop 
of this city, must have been a successor, 
not a predecessor, of Claudius Apolli- 
naris. In this case we have the alter- 
native of abandoning the identification 
of this Avircius with the Hierapolitan 
bishop of the same name, or of reject- 
ing the statement of the Acts which 
places his episcopate in this reign. 

The occurrence of the name Aber- 
cins in the later history of the see of 
Hierapolis (see p. 55) is no argument 


His surname, which seems to have been co 
mon in these parts’, may have been derived from the patron lis. 


against the existence of this earlier 
bishop. It was no uncommon practice 
for the later occupants of sees to assume 
the name of some famous predecessor 
who lived in primitive or early times. 
The case of Ignatius at Antioch is only 
one of several examples which might 
be produced. 

There is some ground for supposing 
that, like Papias and Apollinaris, 
Abercius earned a place in literary 
history. Baronio had in his hands an 
epistle to M. Aurelius, purporting to 
have been written by this Abercius, 
which he obviously considered genuine 
and which he describes as ‘apostoli- 
cum redolens spiritum,’ promising to 
publish it in his Annals (Martyr. Rom. 
Oct. 22). To his great grief however 
he afterwards lost it (‘doluimus vehe- 
menter e manibus nostris elapsam 
nescio quomodo’), and was therefore 
unable to fulfil his promise (Annal, s.a. 
163, n. 15). A BiBdos didacxadias by 
Abercius is mentioned in the Acts 
(§ 39); but this, if it ever existed, was 
doubtless spurious. 

1 Some of the family, as we may 
infer from the monuments, held a 
high position in another Phrygian 
town. Ona tablet at Aizani, on which 


NARIS bi- 
_ Shop of 
mt Hierapo- 


58 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 
deity of Hierapolis’ and suggests a Gentile origin. His inti- 
mate acquaintance with heathen literature, which is mentioned 
by more than one ancient writer, points in the same direction. 
During the reign of M. Aurelius he had already made himself 
a name by his writings, and seems to have been promoted to 
the see of Hierapolis before the death of that emperor’. 

His liter- Of his works, which were very numerous, only a few scanty 

sche fragments have survived*, The imperfect lists however, which 
have reached us, bear ample testimony both to the literary 
activity of the man, and to the prominence of the Church over 
which he presided, in the great theological and ecclesiastical 
controversies of the age. 

He takes The two questions, which especially agitated the Churches 

See of Asia Minor during the last thirty years of the first century, 

sae were the celebration of the Easter festival and the pretensions 

day. of the Montanist prophets. In both disputes Claudius Apolli- 


naris took an active and conspicuous part. 
1. The Paschal controversy, after smouldering long both 


is inscribed a letter from the emperor 
Septimius Severus in reply to the con- 
gratulations of the people at the ele- 
vation of Caracalla to the rank of Au- 
gustus (4.D. 198), we find the name of 
KAAYAIOC . ATTOAAINAPIOC . AYPHAIO- 
NOC, Boeckh 3837 (see m1. p. 1066 
add.). In another inscription at the 
same place, the same or another mem- 
ber of the family is commemorated as 
holding the office of pretor for the 
second time, CTPATHTOYNTOC. TO. B. 
KA . ATIOAAINAPIOY ; Boeckh 3840, 
ib. p. 1067. See also the inscriptions 
3842 ¢, 3846 z (ib. pp. 1069, 1078) at 
the same place, where again the name 
Apollinarius occurs. It is found also 
at Appia no. 3857 b (ib. p. 1086). Atan 
earlier date one Claudius Apollinaris 
appears in command of the Roman 
fleet at Misenum (Tac. Hist. iii. 57, 76; 
77). The name occurs also at Hiera- 
polis itself, Boeckh, no. 3915, TT. 


AIAIOC . Th. AIAIOY . ATTOAAINAPIOY « 
loyAlano[y].yioc . ce[...]. aTtoAAl- 
NAPIC . MAKEAODN . K.T-Aey which shows 
that both the forms, Apollinaris and 
Apollinarius, by which the bishop of 
Hierapolis is designated, are legitimate, 
The former however is the correct 
Latin form, the latter being the Greek 
adaptation. 

More than a generation later than 
our Apollinaris, Origen in his letter to 
Africanus (Op. 1. 30, Delarue) sends 
greeting to a bishop bearing this name 
(rov Kahov Hudy mdmav’Arodvdpiov), of 
whom nothing more is known. 

1 Apollo Archegetes; see above p. 
12, note I. 

2 Kuseb. H. E. iv. 26, Chron. 8. a. 
171, 172, ‘ Apollinaris Asianus, Hiera- 
politanus episcopus, insignis habetur.’ 

3 Collected in Routh’s Reliquie Sa- 
cr@ I. p. 159 8q., and more recently in 
Otto’s Corp. Apol. Christ. 1x. p. 479 8q. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 59 


here and elsewhere, first burst into flames in the neighbouring 1. The 
Church of Laodicea’, An able bishop of Hierapolis therefore Pees 
must necessarily have been involved in the dispute, even if he 

had been desirous of avoiding it. What side Apollinaris took 

in the controversy the extant fragments of his work do not 

by themselves enable us to decide; for they deal merely with 

a subsidiary question which does not seriously affect the main 

issue, But we can hardly doubt that with Polycarp of 
Smyrna and Melito of Sardis and Polycrates of Ephesus he 
defended the practice which was universal in Asia’, observing 

the Paschal anniversary on the 14th Nisan whether it fell on 

a Friday or not, and invoking the authority of St John at 
Ephesus, and of St Philip at his own Hierapolis*, against the 
divergent usage of Alexandria and Palestine and the West. 

2. His writings on the Montanist controversy were still 2.Montan- 
more famous, and are recommended as an authority on the 
subject by Serapion of Antioch a few years after the author’s 
death®. Though later than many of his works*®, they were 
written soon after Montanus had divulged the extravagance of 
his pretensions and before Montanism had attained its complete 
development. Ifa later notice may be trusted, Apollinaris was 
not satisfied with attacking Montanism in writing, but sum- 
moned at Hierapolis a council of twenty-six bishops besides 


1 See below, p. 63. # See Polycrates of Ephesus in 


2 The main point at issue was 
whether the exact day of the month 
should be observed, as the Quarto- 
decimans maintained, irrespective of 
the day of the week. The fragments of 
Apollinaris (preserved in the Chron. 
Pasch. p. 13) relate to a discrepancy 
which some had found in the accounts 
of St Matthew and St John. 

8 Eusebius represents the dioceses 
of ‘Asia’ and the neighbourhood, as 
absolutely unanimous; H. E. v. 23 ris 
*Aclas dmdons al mapotklat, V. 24 Tis 
"Aclas maons dua Tals dubpots exxAnolas 
Tas mapolas. -‘Asia’ includes all this 
district, as appears from Polycrates, ib. 


Euseb. H. E. v. 24. 

5 In Euseb. H. E. v. 19. 

6 Kusebius (H. E. iv. 27) at the 
close of his list of the works of Apol- 
linaris gives cal d wera ravdra ouv- 
éypaye card ris [Trav] Ppvyav aipé- 
gews per’ od odtv Katvorounbelons 
xpivov, Thre ye piv domep exptew dp- 
xouévns, rt TOD Movravov dua rats av- 
Tov Wevdorpodiyriow apxds THs mapex- 
Tpow7js mo.oupévov, i.e. the vagaries of 
Montanus and his followers had al- 
ready begun when Apollinaris wrote, 
but Montanism assumed a new phase 
shortly after. 


60 


His other 
heresiolo- 
gical writ- 
ings. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


himself, where this heresy was condemned and sentence of 
excommunication pronounced against Montanus together with 
his adherent the pretended prophetess Maximilla’, 

Nor were his controversial writings confined to these two 


topics. 


In one place he refuted the Encratites?; in another he 


upheld the orthodox teaching respecting the true humanity of 
Christ*®. It is plain that he did not confine himself to questions 
especially affecting Asia Minor; but that the doctrine and the 


1 Included in the Libellus Synodi- 
cus published by Pappus; see Labb. 
Conc. I. 615, ed. Coleti. Though this 
council is not mentioned elsewhere, 
there is no sufficient ground for ques- 
tioning its authenticity. The import- 
ant part taken by Apollinaris against 
the Monitanists is recognised by Eu- 
sebius H. EH. v. 16, mpos THv Aeyouévnv 
Kara Ppivyas alpecw Srdov loxupov Kat 
dxaraydévicrov émt ris ‘Iepamddews Tov 
*Arrohvd pov. 

After mentioning the council the 
compiler of this Synodicon speaks thus 
of the false prophets ; of cal Br\acg7- 
pws, nTor Sawovwvres, Kabus pyow 6 
auvrés marip [i.e. ’Amodiwdpros], Tov Blov 
karéorpevay, adv avrois 6é Kkaréxpiwe 
kal Gebdorov rov oxuréa, He evidently 
has before him the fragments of the 
anonymous treatises quoted by Euse- 
bius (H. EZ. v. 16), as the following 
parallels taken from these fragments 
show: ws éml évepyounévy kal Sacpo- 
vaovTt..BrAacpynuety SiddoKxovros Tov 
drnvOadiouevov mvevuaros...Tdv Budv 
Karaoctpéwat Iovda mpoddrov dlknv 
...olov érirporby tia Oeddorov monrvs 
alpe? Noyos...rereAeurjKace Movravés Te 
kal Qeddoros kal 7} mpoeipnuévn yur}. 
Thus he must have had before him a 
text of Eusebius which omitted the 
words 64 ris at the commencement, as 
they are omitted in some existing 
mss (see above, p. 56, note); and ac- 
cordingly he ascribed all the treatises 
to Apollinaris, The parallels are 


taken from the first and second trea- 
tises; the first might have been written 
by Apollinaris, but the second was 
certainly not by his hand, as it re- 
fers to much later events (see above, 
p- 56). 

Hefele (Conciliengeschichte 1. p. 71) 
places the date of this council be- 
fore a.D. 150. But if the testimony 
of Eusebius is worth anything, this is 
impossible; for he states that the 
writings of Claudius Apollinaris a- 
gainst the Montanists were later than 
his Apology to M. Aurelius (see p. 59, 
note 6), and this Apology was not 
written till after a.p. 174 (see p. 61, 
noter). The chronology of Montanism 
is very perplexing, but Hefele’s dates 
appear to be much too early. The 
Chronicon of Eusebius gives the rise 
of Montanism under 4.D. 172 or 173, 
and this statement is consistent with 
the notices in his History. But if 
this date be correct, it most probably 
refers to Montanism as a distinct 
system; and the fires had probably 
been smouldering within the Church 
for some time before they broke out. 

It will be observed that the writer 
of the Synodicon identifies Theodotus 
the Montanist (see Euseb. H. E. v. 3) 
with Theodotus the leather-seller who 
was a Monarchian. There is no au- 
thority for this identification in Euse- 
bius. 

2 Theodoret. H. F. i. 21. 

3 Soor. H. E. iii. 7. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


practice of the Church generally found in him a vigorous 
advocate, who was equally opposed to the novelties of heretical 
teaching and to the rigours of overstrained asceticism. 

Nor again did Apollinaris restrict himself to controversies 
carried on between Christian and Christian. He appears alike 
as the champion of the Gospel against attacks from without, 
and as the promoter of Christian life and devotion within the 


61 


pale of the Church. On the one hand he was the author of an His apolo- 


apology addressed to M. Aurelius’, of a controversial treatise in an 


five books against the Greeks, and of a second in two books 
against the Jews”; on the other we find mentioned among his 


writings a work in two books on Truth, and a second on Piety, oat ae 
besides several of which the titles have not. come down to us’. works, 


He seems indeed to have written on almost every subject which 
interested the Church of his age. He was not only well versed 
in the Scriptures, but showed a wide acquaintance with secular 


1 Kuseb. H. EH. iv. 26, 27. He re- 
ferred in this Apology to the incident 
of the so-called Thundering Legion, 
which happened A.D. 174; and as re- 
ported by Eusebius (H. E. v. 5), he 
stated that the legion was thus named 
by the emperor in commemoration of 
this miraculous thunderstorm. As a 
contemporary however, he must pro- 
bably have known that the title Legio 
Fulminata existed long before; and 
we may conjecture that he used some 
ambiguous expression implying that 
it was fitly so named (e.g. éruvupov 
Ths ovvruxlas), which Eusebius and 
later writers misunderstood ; just as 
Eusebius himself (vy. 24) speaks of 
Irenzus as depwvupudss ris dv TH mpoon- 
yoplg abr@ te TO Tpdry elpnvorois. Of 
the words used by Eusebius, olxelay rg 
yeyovérs mpds Tod Bacitéws eldndévar 
mwpooryoplay, we may suspect that ol- 
xelay T@ yeyovbts mpoonyoplay is an ex- 
pression borrowed from Apollinaris 
himself, while wpds rod Bacidéws eld\n- 
gévac gives Eusebius’ own erroneous 


interpretation of his author’s mean- 
ing. 

The name of this legion was Ful- 
minata, not Fulminatriz, as it is often 
carelessly written out, where the in- 
scriptions have merely FVLM.; see 
Becker and Marquardt Rim, Alterth. 
Ill. 2, Pp. 353- 

2 The words cal wpds "Iovdalous rpd- 
tov Kal devrepov are omitted in some 
mss and by Rufinus. They are found 
however in the very ancient Syriac 
version, and are doubtless genuine. 
Their omission is due to the hommote- 
leuton, as they are immediately pre- 
ceded by xal wept ddnOclas rp&rov Kal 
dedrepov. 

8 A list of his works is given by 
Eusebius (H. LE. iv. 27), who explains 
that there were many others which 
he had not seen. This list omits the 
work on the Paschal Feast, which is 
quoted in the Chronicon Paschale 
p. 13 (ed. Dind.), and the treatise on 
Piety, of which we know from Photius 
Bibl. 14. 


62 


Important 
bearing of 
these facts 
on the 
history of 
Christi- 
anity. 


Solidarity 
of the 

Church in 
the second 


century. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


literature also’. His style is praised by a competent judge’, 
and his orthodoxy was such as to satisfy the dogmatic precision 
of the post-Nicene age®. 

These facts are not unimportant in their bearing on the 
question which has already been discussed in relation to Papias. 
If there had been such a discontinuity of doctrine and practice 
in the Church of Hierapolis as the theory in question assumes, 
if the Pauline Gospel was repudiated in the later years of the 
first century and rank Judaism adopted in its stead, how can 
we explain the position of Apollinaris? Obviously a counter- 
revolution must have taken place, which undid the effects of 
the former. One dislocation must have been compensated by 
another, And yet Irenzus knows nothing of these religious con- 
vulsions which must have shaken the doctrine of the Church to 
its foundations, but represents the tradition as one, continuous, 
unbroken, reaching back through the elders of the Asiatic 
Churches, through Papias and Polycarp, to St John himself— 
Irenzeus who received his Christian education in Asia Minor, 
who throughout life was in communication with the churches 
there, and who had already reached middle age when this second 
revolution is supposed to have occurred. The demands on 
our credulity, which this theory makes, are enormous. And 
its improbability becomes only the more glaring, as we extend 
our view. For the solidarity of the Church is the one striking 
fact unmistakably revealed to us, as here and there the veil 
which shrouds the history of the second century is lifted. 
Anicetus and Soter and Eleutherus and Victor at Rome, 
Pantenus and Clement at Alexandria, Polycrates at Ephesus, 
Papias and Apollinaris at Hierapolis, Polycarp at Smyrna, 
Melito at Sardis, Ignatius and Serapion at Antioch, Primus and 
Dionysius at Corinth, Pothinus and Irenzus in Gaul, Philippus 

1 Theodoret. Her. Fab. iii. 2 dvhp fame literature. 
diiérawos Kal mpds TH yywoe Tay Oelwv 2 Photius lc., dgibdoyos 52 6 dvhp 
kal Thy ewer mardelan mpocerygus. Kal dpdoer akiodoyy Kexpnucvos. 
So too Jerome, Ep. 7o (1. p. 428, ed. 3 Kuseb. H. E. iv. 21, Jerome 1, «., 


Vallarsi), names him among those who Theodoret.1c¢., Socr. H. E. iii, 7. 
were equally versed in sacred and pro- 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


and Pinytus in Crete, Hegesippus and Narcissus in Palestine, 


all are bound together by the ties of a common organization and 
the sympathy of a common creed. The Paschal controversy 
is especially valuable, as showing the limits of divergence 
consistent with the unity of the Church. The study of this 
controversy teaches us to appreciate with ever-increasing force 
the pregnant saying of Irenzeus that the difference of the usage 
establishes the harmony of the faith’. 

Though Laodicea cannot show the same intellectual activity Activity of 
as Hierapolis, yet in practical energy she is not wanting. 


One of those fitful persecutions, which sullied the rule of Martyr- 
the imperial Stoic, deprived Laodicea of her bishop Sagaris?. : 


63 


Laodicea. 


The exact date of his martyrdom is not known; but we cannot % 4? 165 


be far wrong in assigning it to an early year in the reign of 


M. Aurelius, His name appears to have been held in great 


honour’, 


But while the Church of Laodicea was thus contending Outbreak 
against foes without, she was also torn asunder by feuds within. 
Coincident with the martyrdom of Sagaris was the outburst of "eV: 
the Paschal controversy, of which mention has been already 
made, and which for more than a century and a half disturbed 
the peace of the Church, until it was finally laid at rest by the 


1 Tren. in Euseb. H. E. v. 24 % dia- 
-durla rijs vnoretas (the fast which pre- 
ceded the Paschal festival) rjv ouovoray 
Ths mlorews cwloryc.. 

2 Melito in Euseb. H. E. iv. 26 ém 
ZepourrAlov Iavdov dvOurdrov rijs 
*Aclas, @ Zdyapis Kaipg~ euapripycer, 
éyévero Syrynois wodkdn év Aaodixelg 
mept ToU wacxXa éumecdvros KaTa Katpov 
év éxeivars Tals huépats, kal éypagyn Tatra 
(i.e. Melito’s own treatise on the 
Paschal festival). 

3 The proconsulate of Paullus, under 
whom this martyrdom took place, is 
dated by Borghesi (Guvres vii. p. 507) 
somewhere between A.D. 163—168; by 
Waddington (Fastes des Provinces Asia- 
tiques p. 731, in Le Bas and Wadding- 
ton Voyage Archéologique etc.) probably 


A.D. 164—166. This rests on the as- 
sumption that the Servillius Paullus 
here named must be identified with L. 
Sergius Paullus of the inscriptions. 
The name Sergius is elsewhere. con- 
founded with Servius (Servillius) (see 
Borghesi rv. p. 493, VIII. p. 504, 
Mommsen Rém. Forsch. 1. p. 8, Ephem. 
Epigr. 11. p. 338.). The mistake must 
have been introduced very early into 
the text of Eusebius. All the Greek mss 
have Servillius (Servilius), and so it is 
given in the Syriac Version. Ruffinus 
however writes it correctly Sergius. 

* Besides Melito (1.c.), Polycrates of 
Ephesus refers to him with respect; 
Euseb. H. E. v. 24, rl 58 def réyew 
LZdyapw erloxorov kat pcprupa, bs év 
Aaodixeig. Kexolunrat. 


of fhe Pas- 
chal con- 


64 THH OHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


Council of Nicwa. The Laodiceans would naturally regulate 
their festival by the Asiatic or Quartodeciman usage, strictly 
observing the_day of the month and disregarding the day of 
the week. But a great commercial centre like Laodicea must 
have attracted large crowds of foreign Christians from Palestine 
or Egypt or Rome or Gaul, who were accustomed to commemo- 
rate the Passion always on a Friday and the Resurrection on 
a Sunday according to the western practice; and in this way 
probably the dispute arose. The treatise on the Paschal 
Festival by Melito of Sardis was written on this occasion to 
defend the Asiatic practice. The fact that Laodicea became 
the head-quarters of the controversy is a speaking testimony 
to the prominence of this Church in the latter half of the 
second century. 
Hierapolis Ata later date the influence of both Hierapolis and Laodicea 
og ‘1 has sensibly declined. In the great controversies of the fourth 
iy : and fifth centuries they take no conspicuous part. Among their 
bishops there is not one who has left his mark on history. And 
yet their names appear at most of the great Councils, in which 
The Arian they bear a silent part. At Nicaea Hierapolis was represented 
re by Flaccus’, Laodicea by Nunechius*. They both acquiesced 
A.D. 325: in its decrees, and the latter as metropolitan published them 
throughout the Phrygian Churches’, Soon after, both sees 
Philippo- lapsed into Arianism. At the synod of Philippopolis, com- 
eae 47. posed of bishops who had seceded from the Council of Sardica, 
the representatives of these two sees were present and joined 
in the condemnation of the Athanasians. On this occasion 
Hierapolis was still represented by Flaccus, who had thus turned 
traitor to his former faith’, On the other hand Laodicea had 
changed its bishop twice meanwhile. Cecropius had won the 


1 Labb. Cone. 1. 57, 62, ed. Coleti; 2 Labb, Conc. 11. 57, 62; Cowper’s 
Cowper’s Syriac Miscellanies p.11, 28. Syriac Miscellanies pp. 11, 28, 34. He 
It is remarkable that after Papias had also been present at the Synod 
all the early bishops of Hierapolis of Ancyra held about a.p. 314 (see 
of whom we hear have Roman names; Galatians p. 34); ib. p. 41. 

Avircius Marcellus (?), Claudius Apolli- 3 Labb. Conc. 1. 236. 
naris, Flaccus, Lucius, Venantius. 4 ib. 744. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOCUS. 


imperial favour by his abuse of the orthodox party, and was first 
promoted to Laodicea, whence he was translated to Nicomedia*. 
He was succeeded by Nonnius, who signed the Arian decree at 


Philippopolis *. 


When these sees recovered their orthodoxy we 


65 


do not know; but it is perhaps a significant fact, that neither [Constax- 


TINOPLE, 


is represented at the second general Council, held at Constan- 4». 3g1.] 


tinople (A.D. 381)*. 


At the third general Council, which met tbe hee 
an an 


at Ephesus, Laodicea is represented by Aristonicus, Hierapolis | Encyenian 
by Venantius‘. Both bishops sign the decrees condemning 


Nestorius. 


agitated the Church the two sees bear their part. 


At. the 


heresies. 
EPHESUS. 


Again in the next Christological controversy which 4-. 431- 


notorious Robbers’ Synod, held also at Ephesus, Laodicea was ne 
represented by another Nunechius, Hierapolis by Stephanus. 4 ree “449. 
Both bishops committed themselves to the policy of Dioscorus 


and the opinions of the heretic Eutyches *. 


Yet with the fickle- 


ness which characterized these sees at an earlier date during 
the Arian controversy, we find their representatives two years 
later at the Council of Chalcedon siding with the orthodox rae 
party and condemning the Eutychian heresy which they had a». 451 


1 Athanas. ad Epise, Zgypt. 8 (Op. 
1. p. 219), Hist. Arian. ad Mon. 74 
(ib. p. 307). 

* Labb. Cone. 1. 744. 

® Cowper’s Syriac Miscell. p. 39. 

4 Labb. Conc. 11. 1085, 1222, Mans. 
Cone. tv. 1357. The name of this 
bishop of Hierapolis is variously writ- 
ten, but Venantius seems to be the 
true orthography. For some unex- 
plained reason, though present in 
person, he signs by deputy. He had 
before subscribed the protest to Cyril 
against commencing the proceedings 
before the arrival of John of Antioch 
(Mans. Conc. v. 767), and perhaps his 
acquiescence in the decisions of the 
Council was not very hearty. 

5 Labb. Conc. iv. 892, 925, 928, 
XI07, 1170, 1171, 1185. In the Acts 
of this herctical council, as occasion- 


COL. 


ally in those of the Council of Chal- 
cedon, Laodicea is surnamed Trimi- 
taria (see above, p. 18, note 2). Fol- 
lowing Le Quien (Or. Christ. 1. p. 835), 
I have assumed the Stephanus who 
was present at the Latrocinium to 
have been bishop of the Phrygian 
Hierapolis, though I have not found 
any decisive indication which Hie- 
rapolis is meant, On the other hand 
the bishop of the Syrian Hierapolis 
at this time certainly bore the name 
Stephanus (Labb. Cone. rv. 727, 1506, 
[1550], 1644, 1836, v. 46); and the 
synod held under Stephanus A.D. 445, 
which Wiltsch (Geography and Statis- 
tics of the Church 1. p. 170, Eng. 
Trans.) assigns to our Hierapolis, 
belongs to the Syrian city of the same 
name, as the connexion with Perrha 
shews: Labb. Conc. Iv. 727, 1644. 


5 


66 


Later 
vacillation 
of these 
sees. 


Theircom- 
parative 
unimpor- 
tance. 


CouNncIL 
or Laopt- 
CEA an eX- 
ception. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


so lately supported. Nunechius is still bishop of Laodicea, 
and reverses his former vote. Stephanus has been succeeded 
at Hierapolis by Abercius, whose orthodoxy, so far as we know, 
had not been compromised by any previous expression of opinion®. 

The history of these churches at a later date is such as 
might have been anticipated from their attitude during the 
period of the first Four General Councils. The sees of Laodicea 
and Hierapolis, one or both, are represented at all the more 
important assemblies of the Church; and the same vacillation 
and infirmity of purpose, which had characterized their holders 
in the earlier councils, marks the proceedings of their later 
successors *, 

But, though the two sees thus continue to bear witness to 
their existence by the repeated presence of their occupants at 
councils and synods, yet the real influence of Laodicea and 
Hierapolis on the Church at large has terminated with the 
close of the second century. On one occasion only did either 
community assume a position of prominence, About the middle 


of the fourth century a council was held at Laodicea*, 


1 Labb. Conc. tv. 853, 862, 
1204, 1241, 1312, 1337) 1383; 
1444, 1445, 1463, 1480, 1481, 
I501, 1505, 1716, 1732, 1736, 
1746, 1751. 

2 The bishops of both sees are 
addressed by the Emperor Leo in 
his letter respecting the Council of 
Chalcedon: but their replies are not 
preserved. Nunechius is still bishop 
of Laodicea; but Hierapolis has again 
changed hands, and Philippus has 
succeeded Abercius (Labb. Conc. iv. 
1836 sq.). Nunechius of Laodicea was 
one of those who signed the decree 
against simony at the Council of Con- 
stantinople (A.D. 459): Conc. v. 50, 

3 See for instance the tergiversa- 
tion of Theodorus of Laodicea and Ig- 
natius of Hierapolis in the matter of 
Photius and the 8th General Council. 

4 This council cannot have been 


I 195; 
1392, 
1496, 
17445 


It 


held earlier than the year 344, as the 
7th canon makes mention of the Pho- 
tinians, and Photinus did not attract 
notice before that year: see Hefele, 
Conciliengesch. 1. p. 722 sq. In the 
ancient lists of Councils it stands after 
that of Antioch (4.D. 341), and before 
that of Constantinople (A.D, 381). 
Dr Westcott (History of the Canon 
p. 400) is inclined to place it about 
A.D. 363, and this is the time very 
generally adopted. 

Here however a difficulty presents 
itself, which has not been noticed 
hitherto. In the Syriac ms Brit. Mus. 
Add. 14,528, are lists of the bishops 
present at the earlier councils, includ- 
ing Laodicea (see Wright’s Catalogue of 
the Syriac MSS in the British Museum, 
DCCOVI, p. 1030 8q.). These lists have 
been published by Cowper (Syriac 
Miscell. p. 42 sq., Analecta Nicena 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 67 


was convened more especially to settle some points of ecclesi- tg decree 


astical discipline ; but incidentally the assembled bishops were alae 


led to make an order respecting the Canon of Scripture’. As 


p. 36), who however has transposed 
the lists of Antioch and Laodicea, so 
that he ascribes to the Antiochian 
Synod the names which really belong 
to the Laodicean. This is determined 
(as I am informed by Prof. Wright) 
by the position of the lists. 

The Laodicean list then, which seems 
to be imperfect, contains twenty names; 
and, when examined, it yields these re- 
sults, (1) At least three-fourths of the 
names can be identified with bishops 
who sat at Nicea, and probably the 
exceptions would be fewer, if in some 
cases they had not been obscured by 
transcription into Syriac and by the 
errors of copyists. (2) When identi- 
fied, they are found to belong in almost 
every instance to Ccelesyria, Phcenicia, 
Palestine, Cilicia, and Isauria, whereas 
apparently not one comes from Phrygia, 
Lydia, or the other western districts 
of Asia Minor. 

Supposing that this is a genuine 
Lacdicean list, we are led by the first 
result to place it as near in time as 
possible to the Council of Nicea; 
and by the second to question whether 
after all the Syrian Laodicea may not 
have been meant instead of the Phry- 
gian. On the other hand tradition is 
unanimous in placing this synod in 
the Phrygian town, and in this very 
Syriac ms the heading of the canons 
begins ‘Of the Synod of Laodicea of 
Phrygia.’ On the whole it appears 
probable that this supposed list of 
bishops who met at Laodicea belongs 
to some other Council. The Laodicean 
Synod seems to have been, as Dr 
Westcott describes it (1. c.), ‘A small 
gathering of clergy from parts of 
Lydia and Phrygia.’ 

In a large mosaic work in the Church 


at Bethlehem, in which all the more 
important councils are represented, 
we find the following inscription ; [‘H] 
ayla cuvodos 7 év Aaodixela ris Bpvylas 
Tuy Ke érioxdtrev yéyovev da Movravoy 
ké [r]a{s] Noras épéoets* rov[rous] ws 
alperixods Kai éxOpods rijs ddebelas 4 
dyla ouvodos dveQeudrioey (Ciampini de 
Sacr. didif. a Constant. constr. p. 156; 
comp. Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 8953). 
The mention of Montanus might sug- 
gest that this was one of those Asiatic 
synods held against Montanism at 
the end of the second or beginning of 
the third century. But no record of 
any such synod is preserved elsewhere, 
and, as all the other Councils com- 
memorated in these mosaics are found 
in the list sanctioned by the Quini- 
sextine Council, this can hardly have 
been an exception. The inscription 
must therefore refer to the well-known 
Council of Laodicea in the fourth cen- 
tury, which received this sanction. 
The description however is not very 
correct, for though Montanism is inci- 
dentally condemned in the eighth 
canon, yet this condemnation was not 
the main object of the council and oc- 
cupies a very subordinate place. The 
Bethlehem mosaics were completed 
A.D. 116g. see Boeckh C. I. 8736. 

1 The canons of this Council, 
59 in number, will be found in Labb. 
Cone. 1. 1530 8q., ed. Coleti. The last 
of these forbids the reading of any 
but ‘the Canonical books of the New 
and Old Testament.’ To this is often 
appended (sometimes as a 6oth canon) 
& list of the Canonical books; but 
Dr Westcott has shown that this list 
is a later addition and does not 
belong to the original decrees of the 
couneil (Canon p. 400 8q.): 


5-2 


68 


Its decrees 


illustrate 
the Epis- 
tle to the 
Colos- 
sians. 


Col. ii. 14, 
16, 17. 


Col. ii, 18. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


this was the first occasion in which the subject had been 
brought formally before the notice of an ecclesiastical assembly, 
this Council of Laodicea secured a notoriety which it would not 
otherwise have obtained, and to which it was hardly entitled 
by its constitution or its proceedings. Its decrees were con- 
firmed and adopted by later councils both in the East and in 
the West’. 

More important however for my special purpose, than the 
influence of this synod on the Church at large, is the light 
which its canons throw on the heretical tendencies of this 
district, and on the warnings of St Paul in the Colossian 
Epistle. To illustrate this fact it will only be necessary to 
write out some of these canons at length: 

29. ‘Itis not right for Christians to Judaize and abstain 
from labour on the sabbath, but to work on this same day. 
They should pay respect rather to the Lord’s day, and, if 
possible, abstain from labour on it as Christians. But if they 
should be found Judaizers, let them be anathema in the sight 
of Christ.’ 

35. ‘It is not right for Christians to abandon the Church 
of God and go away and invoke angels (ayyedous ovouatev)? 


1 By the Quinisextine Council (a.p. 
692) in the East (Labb. Cone. vu. 
1345), and by the Synod of Aix-la- 
Chapelle (4.p. 789) in the West (Conc. 
IX. 10 8q.). 

2 Theodoret about a century after 
the Laodicean Council, commenting on 
Col. ii. 18, states that this disease 
(rd maGos) which St Paul denounces 
‘long remained in Phrygia and Pi- 
sidia,? ‘For this reason also,’ he 
adds, ‘a synod convened in Lao- 
dicea of Phrygia forbad by a decree 
the offering prayer to angels; and 
even to the present time oratories of 
the holy Michael may be seen among 
them and their neighbours.’ See 
also below p. 70, note 3. A curi- 
ous inscription, found in the theatre 


at Miletus (Boeckh C. I. 2895), illus- 
trates this tendency. It is written 
in seven columns, each having a dif- 
ferent planetary symbol, and a dif- 
ferent permutation of the vowels with 
the same invocation, ari€. PYAATON. 


THN . TIOAIN . MIAHCION . Kal . 


TIANTAC ° TOYC . KATOIKOYNTAC, 
while at the common base is written 


APYArPeAOl . PYAACCETAI . H . TTO- 


Alc . MIAHCIOON . Kal. TIANTEC. Ol. 
KdT... Boeckh writes, ‘Etsi hic 
titulus Gnosticorum et Basilidianorum 
commentis prorsus congruus est, ta- 
men potuit ab ethnicis Milesiis scrip- 
tus esse; quare nolui eum inter Chris- 
tianos rejicere, quum presertim pub- 
lice Milesiorum superstitionis docu- 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 69 


and hold conventicles (cvvd&eus trovetv) ; for these things are 
forbidden. If therefore any one is found devoting himself 
to this secret idolatry, let him be anathema, because he aban- 
doned our Lord Jesus Christ and went after idolatry.’ 

36. ‘It is not right for priests or clergy to be magicians 
or enchanters or mathematicians or astrologers’, or to make 
safeguards (puAaxTypia) as they are called, for such things are 
prisons (Secuwrrpia) of their souls*: and we have enjoined 
that they which wear them be cast out of the Church.’ 

37. ‘It is not right to receive from Jews or heretics the 
festive offerings which they send about, nor to join in their 
festivals.’ 

38. ‘It is not right to receive unleavened bread from the 
Jews or to participate in their impieties.’ 

It is strange, at this late date, to find still lingering in 
these churches the same readiness to be ‘judged in respect 
of an holiday or a new moon or a sabbath, with the same 
tendency to relinquish the hold of the Head and to substitute 
‘a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels,’ which three 
centuries before had called forth the Apostle’s rebuke and 
warning in the Epistle to the Colossians. 

During the flourishing period of the Eastern Church, Lao- feclesias- 
dicea appears as the metropolis of the province of Phrygia tics! status 
Pacatiana, counting among its suffragan bishoprics the see of oe bed 
Colosse*. On the other hand Hierapolis, though only six lis. 
miles distant, belonged to the neighbouring province of Phrygia 
Salutaris ‘, whose metropolis was Synnada, and of which it was 


mentum insigne sit.’ The idea of parixol is used in this decree in its 


the seven yo, combined in the one 
dpxayyedos, seems certainly to point 
to Jewish, if not Christian, influences: 
Rev. i. 4, iii. x, iv. 5, v. 6. 

1 Though there is no direcf men- 
tion of ‘magic’ in the letter to the 
Colossians, yet it was a characteristic 
tendency of this part of Asia: Acts 
xix. 19, 2 Tim. iii. 8, 13. See the 
note on Gal. v. 20. The term puadn- 


ordinary sense of astrologers, sooth- 
payers. 

2 A play on the double sense of ¢v- 
Aaxripiov (1) @ safeguard or amulet, 
(2) a guard-house. 

3 A list of the bishoprics belonging 
to this province at the time of the 
Council of Chalcedon is given, Labb. 
Cone, Iv. 1501, 1716. 

4 Cone. rv. 1716, 1744. 


70 


Obscurity 
of Colossz. 


It is sup- 
planted by 
Chone. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


one of the most important sees. The stream of the Lycus 
seems to have formed the boundary line between the two 
At a later date Hierapolis itself was 
raised to metropolitan rank’. 

But while Laodicea and Hierapolis held the foremost place 
in the records of the early Church, and continued to bear an 
active, though inconspicuous part, in later Christian history, 
Colossee was from the very first a cipher. 


ecclesiastical provinces. 


The town itself, as 
we have seen, was already waning in importance, when the 
Apostle wrote; and its subsequent decline seems to have been 
rapid. Not a single event in Christian history is connected 
with its name; and its very existence is only rescued from 
oblivion, when at long intervals some bishop of Colosse at- 
taches his signature to the decree of an ecclesiastical synod. 
The city ceased to strike coins in the reign of Gordian (A.D. 
238—244)*”. It fell gradually into decay, being supplanted by 
the neighbouring town Chonz, the modern Chonos, so called 
from the natural funnels by which the streams here disappear 
in underground channels formed by the incrustations of traver- 


tine °, 


1 At the sth and 6th General Coun- 
cils (A.D. 553 and a.p. 680) Hierapolis 
is styled a metropolis (Labb. Cone. v1. 
220, VII. 1068, 1097, 1117); and in the 
latter case it is designated metropclis 
of Phrygia Pacatiana, though this 
same designation is still given to Lao- 
dicea. Synnada retains its position 
as metropolis of Phrygia Salutaris, 

From this time forward Hierapolis 
seems always to hold metropolitan 
rank. But no notice is preserved of 
the circumstances under which the 
change was made. In the Notitie it 
generally occurs twice—first as a suf- 
fragan see of Phrygia Salutaris, and 
secondly as metropolis of another 
Phrygia Pacatiana (distinct from that 
which has Laodicea for its metropolis) : 
Hieroclis Synecdemus et Notitie (ed. 
Parthey) Not. 1, pp. 56, 57, 69, 733 


We may conjecture also that its ruin was hastened by 


Not. 3, pp. 114, 124; Not. 7, pp. 152, 
161; Not. 8, pp. 164, 176, 180; Not. 
9, pp- 193, 197; Not. 10, pp. 212, 220. 
In this latter position it is placed 
quite out of the proper geographical 
order, thus showing that its metro- 
politan jurisdiction was created com- 
paratively late. The number of dioceses 
in the province is generally given as 
9; Nilus ib. p. 301. The name of the 
province is variously corrupted from 
Ilaxariavfjs, e.g. Karmariavijs, Karra- 
doxias. Unless the ecclesiastical posi- 
tion of Hierapolis was altogether ano- 
malous, as a province within a pro- 
vince, its double mention in the No- 
titie must be explained by a confusion 
of its earlier and later status. 

2 See Mionnet rv. p. 269, Leake 
Numism. Hellen. p. 45. 

3 Joannes Curopalata p. 686 (ed. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


a renewed assault of its ancient enemy, the earthquake’. It is 
commonly said that Chonz is built on the site of the ancient 
Colosse ; but the later town stands at some distance from the 


Bonn.) ¢jun ... Tods Tovpkous drayyéd- 
Aovoa Thy év Xwvats modcrelav kal avrev 
Tov mwepiBdnrov év Oatwact Kal dvaby- 
fact TOO dpxiorpaTiyou vaov KaradaPety 
év paxalog... kal To dy oxeTAcwrepor, 
pndée Tas TOO xdouaTos onpayyas év wep 
ol srapappéovres Torapol éxeice XwvEevo- 
Mevot Oia THs TOU dpxLoTparyyou Ta- 
ads émidnulas Kal Ocoonulas ws dia 
mpavous dorarouv 7d peta Kal ray 
evdpomouv exovot, Tos KaTamepevydras 
dsarnphoa, K.T.r. 

The ‘worship of angels’ is curiously 
connected with the physical features 
of the country in the legend to which 
Curopalata refers. The people were in 
imminent danger from a sudden inun- 
dation of the Lycus, when the arch- 
angel Michael appeared and opened a. 
chasm in the earth through which the 
waters flowed away harmlessly: Hart- 
ley’s Researches in Greece p. 53. See 
another legend, or another version of 
the legend, in which the archangel 
interposes, in Laborde p. 103. 

It was the birthplace of Nicetas 
Choniates, one of the most important 
of the Byzantine historians, who thus 
speaks of it (de Manuel. vi. 2, p. 230, 
ed. Bonn.); Ppvylav re xai Aaodixecav 
OeAOav ddixvetrar és Kwvas, modu ev- 
Saluova kal weyadnv, mada Tas Kodac- 
ods, rnv éuov Tov ovyypadéws tarpléa, 
kal Tov apxayyercKdy vadv elowwy weyéber 
péyiorov Kal Kader KadAMCTOY SvTa Kal 
Gavpactas xeipds dmravra epyov K.T.X., 
where a corrupt reading IlaXacods for 
Kodagods had misled some. It will be 
remembered that the words méd\w 
evdaluova kal weyddnv are borrowed from 
Xenophon’s description of Colosse 
(Anab. i. 2. 6): see above, p. 15, note 3. 

He again alludes to his native place, 
de Isaac. ii. 2, pp. 52, 3 rods Aaodixets 


5é Ppvyas uvpiaxGs éxdxwoev, Gorep kal 
Tovs Tov Xwvav Tov éuwy olkjropas, and 
Urbs Capta 16, p. 842, 7d 5é Fv éuov 
Tov cuvyypadéws Nixyjra marpls al Xdvac 
kal ) ayxirépuwy Tairy Ppvyiky Aaodl- 
Kela, 

1 We may conjecture that it was the 
disastrous earthquake under Gallienus 
(A.D. 262) which proved fatal to Colos- 
se (see above p. 38, note 1). This is 
consistent with the fact above men- 
tioned that no Colossian coins later 
than Gordian are extant. We read 
indeed of an earthquake in the reign 
of Gordian himself ‘eo usque gravis ut 
civitates etiam terre hiatu deperirent’ 
(Capitol. Vit. Gord. 26), but we are not 
informed of the localities affected by 
it. When §8t Chrysostom wrote, the 
city existed no longer, as may be in- 
ferred from his comment (x1. p. 323) 
‘H rors tas Ppvylas qv* Kal d7pAov éx 
Tov THv Aaodlkerav wrnolov elvat. 

On the other hand M. Renan 
(L’Antechrist p. 99) says of the earth- 
quake under Nero, ‘ Colosses ne sut se 
relever; elle disparut presque du 
nombre des églises’; and he adds in a 
note ‘Colosses n’a pas de monnaies 
impériales [Waddington].’ For this 
statement there is, I believe, no au- 
thority ; 4nd as regards the coins it is 
certainly wrong. 

Earthquakes have been largely in- 
strumental in changing the sites of 
cities situated within the range of 
their influence. Of this we have an 
instance in the neighbourhood of 
Colosse. Hamilton (1. p. 514) reports 
that an earthquake which occurred at 
Denizli about a hundred years ago 
caused the inhabitants to remove their 
residences to a different locality, where 
they have remained ever since. 


71 


72 


Turkish 
conquest. 


THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 


earlier, as Salisbury does from Old Sarum. The episcopal 
see necessarily followed the population; though for some time 
after its removal to the new town the bishop still continued 
to use the older title, with or without the addition of Chon 
by way of explanation, till at length the name of this primitive 


Apostolic Church passes wholly out of sight’. 
The Turkish conquest pressed with more than common 


severity on these districts. 


the Church was taken by surprise. 


When the day of visitation came, 


Occupied with ignoble 


quarrels and selfish interests, she had no ear for the voice of 


Him who demanded admission. 
The long-impending doom overtook 


the knock unheeded. 


The door was barred and 


her, and the golden candlestick was removed for ever from 


the Eternal Presence’, 


1 At the Council of Chalcedon (a.p. 
451) Nunechius of Laodicea subscribes 
‘for the absent bishops under him,’ 
among whom is mentioned ’Em@avilov 
moAews Kodagowv (Labb. Conc. iv. 1501, 
ed. Coleti; comp. ib, 1745). At the 
Quinisextine Council (4.p. 692) occurs 
the signature of Kocuas éricxoros md- 
News Kodacoas (sic) Iaxariayns (Conc. 
vir, 1408). At the 2nd Council of 
Nicwa (a.D. 787) the name of the see 
is in a transition state; the bishop 
Theodosius (or Dositheus) signs him- 
self sometimes Xwvrav yroe Kodacouv, 
sometimes Xwvay simply (Cone. vil. 


689, 796, 988, 1200, 1222, 1357, 1378, 
1432, 1523, 1533, in many of which 
passages the word Xwrwy is grossly 
corrupted). At later Councils the see 
is called XGvac; and this is the name 
which it bears in the Notitie (pp. 97, 
127, 199, 222, 303, ed. Parthey). 

2 For the remains of Christian 
churches at Laodicea see Fellows Asia 
Minor p. 282, Pococke p. 74. <A de- 
scription of three fine churches at 
Hierapolis is given in Fergusson’s II- 
lustrated Handbook of Architecture 1. 
p. 967 sq.; comp, Texier Asie Mineure 
I. p. 143s 


iT: 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


ROM the language of St Paul, addressed to the Church sa a 
of Colosse, we may infer the presence of two disturbing jn =e oats 


elements which threatened the purity of Christian faith an 
practice in this community. These elements are distinguish- 
able in themselves, though it does not follow that they present 
the teaching of two distinct parties. 


d Colossian 
heresy. 


1. A mere glance at the epistle suffices to detect the 1. Jupaic. 


presence of JUDAISM in the teaching which the Apostle com- 
bats. The observance of sabbaths and new moons is decisive 
in this respect. The distinction of meats and drinks points in 
the same direction’. Even the enforcement of the initiatory 
rite of Judaism may be inferred from the contrast implied in 
St Paul’s recommendation of the spiritual circumcision *. 


2. On the other hand a closer examination of its language 2. 
shows that these Judaic features do not exhaust the portrai- ” 


ture of the heresy or heresies against which the epistle is 
directed. We discern an element of theosophic speculation, 
which is alien to the spirit of Judaism proper. We are con- 
fronted with a shadowy mysticism, which loses itself m the 
contemplation of the unseen world. We discover a tendency 
to interpose certain spiritual agencies, intermediate beings, 
between God and man, as the instruments of communication 
and the objects of worship’, Anticipating the result which 
will appear more clearly hereafter, we may say that along 
1 Col. ii. 16, 17, 21 8q. 9 ji. rr. 3 ii. 4, 8, 18, 23. 


GnNos- 


74 


Are these 
combined 
or sepa- 
rate? 


General 
reasons for 
supposing 
one heresy 
only, in 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


with its Judaism there was a GNosTIc element in the false 
teaching which prevailed at Colosse. 


Have we then two heresies here, or one only? Were 
these elements distinct, or were they fused into the same 


system ? 


In other words, Is St Paul controverting a phase 


of Judaism on the one hand, and a phase of Gnosticism on 
the other; or did he find himself in conflict with a Judzo- 
Gnostic heresy which combined. the two’? 

On closer examination we find ourselves compelled to 


adopt the latter alternative. 


The epistle itself contains no 


hint that the Apostle has more than one set of antagonists 


whichthey in view; and the needless multiplication of persons or events 


are fused. 


is always to be deprecated in historical criticism. Nor indeed 
does the hypothesis of a single complex heresy present any 


1 The Colossian heresy kas been 
made the subject of special disserta- 
tions by ScHNECKENBURGER Beitrige 
zur Einleitung ins N. T. (Stuttgart 
1832), and Ueber das Alter der jiidischen 
Proselyten-Taufe, nebst einer Beilage 
viber die Irrlehrer zu Colossé (Berlin 
1828); by OstanpER Ueber die Colos- 
sischen Irrlehrer (Tiibinger Zeitschrift 
for 1834, 111. p. 96 sq.); and by RuEIn- 
WALD De Pseudodoctoribus Colossensibus 
(Bonn 1834). But more valuable con- 
tributions to the subject will often be 
found in introductions to the com- 
mentaries on the epistle. Those of 
Buerex, Davies, Mryer, OLSHAUSEN, 
StriceR, and Ds Werte may be 
mentioned. Among other works which 
may be consulted are Baur Der Apos- 
tel Paulus p. 417 8q.; BoruMer 
Isagoge in Epistolam ad Colossenses, 
Berlin 1829, p. 56 8q., p- 277 8q.; 
Burton Inquiry into the Heresies of 
the Apostolic Age, Lectures Iv, Vv; 
Ewatp Die Sendschreiben des Apostels 
Paulus p. 462 8q.; HILGENFELD 
Der Gnosticismus u. das Neue Testa- 
ment in the Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. 


Theol. xt. p. 233 sq.; R. A. Lip- 
s1us in Schenkels Bibel-Lezicon, s. v. 
Gnosis; Mayrernorr Der Brief an 
die Colosser p. 107 sq.; NEANDER 
Planting of the Christian Church 1. 
p- 319 sq. (Eng. Trans.); Prus- 
SENSE Trois Premiers Siécles u. p. 
194 8q.; Storr Opuscula 1. p. 149 
sq.; TurrrscH Die Kirche im Apos- 
tolischen Zeitalter p. 146 sq. Of all 
the accounts of these Colossian false 
teachers, I have found none more 
satisfactory than that of Neander, 
whose opinions are followed in the 
main by the most sober of later 
writers. 

In the investigation which follows I 
have assumed that the Colossian false 
teachers were Christians in some sense. 
The views maintained by some earlier 
critics, who regarded them as (1) Jews, 
or (2) Greek philosophers, or (3) Chal- 
dean magi, have found no favour and 
do not need serious consideration. See 
Meyer’s introduction for an enumera- 
tion of such views. A refutation of 
them will be found in Bleek’s Vor- 
lesungen p. 12 Sq. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 75 


real difficulty. If the two elements seem irreconcilable, or at 
least incongruous, at first sight, the incongruity disappears on 
further examination. It will be shown in the course of this 
investigation, that some special tendencies of religious thought 
among the Jews themselves before and about this time pre- 
pared the way for such a combination in a Christian community 
like the Church of Colosse*. Moreover we shall find that the 
Christian heresies of the next succeeding ages exhibit in a more 
developed form the same complex type, which here appears in 
its nascent state*; this later development not only showing 
that the combination was historically possible in itself, but 
likewise presupposing some earlier stage of its existence such 
as confronts us at Colosse. 
But in fact the Apostle’s language hardly leaves the ques- S. Paul’s 


: : - language 
tion open. The two elements are so closely interwoven in j, ae 
his refutation, that it is impossible to separate them. He ae 


passes backwards and forwards from the one to the other 
in such a way as to show that they are only parts of one 
complex whole. On this point the logical connexion of the 
sentences is decisive: ‘Beware lest any man make spoil of 
you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of 
men, after the rudiments of the world...Ye were circumcised 
with a circumcision not made with hands...And you...did He 
quicken,...blotting out the handwriting of ordinances which 
was against you...Let no man therefore judge you in meat 
or drink, or in respect of a holy day or a new moon or a 
sabbath...Let no man beguile you of your prize in a self- 
imposed humility and service of angels...If ye died with Christ 
from the rudiments of the world, why...are ye subject to 
ordinances...which things have a show of wisdom in self- 
imposed service and humility and hard treatment of the body, 


but are of no value against indulgence of the flesh*.’ Here 


1 See below, p. 83 sq. 

2 See below, p. 107 8q. 

3 Col. ii. 8—23. Hilgenfeld (Der Gnos- 
ticismus etc. p. 250 §q.) contends stre- 
nuously for the separation of the two 


elements. He argues that ‘these two 
tendencies are related to one another 
as fire and water, and nothing stands 
in the way of allowing the author after 
the first side-glance at the Gnostics to 


76 THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


the superior wisdom, the speculative element which is charac- 
teristic of Gnosticism, and the ritual observance, the practical ’ 
element which was supplied by Judaism, are regarded not 
only as springing from the same stem, but also as inter- 
twined in their growth. And the more carefully we examine 
the sequence of the Apostle’s thoughts, the more intimate will 
the connexion appear. 


Gnostic- 
ism must 
be defined 
and de- 
scribed. 


Having described the speculative element in this complex 
heresy provisionally as Gnostic, I purpose enquiring in the 
first place, how far Judaism prior to and independently of 
Christianity had allied itself with Gnostic modes of thought; 
and afterwards, whether the description of the Colossian heresy 
is such as to justify us in thus classing it as a species of 
Gnosticism. But, as a preliminary to these enquiries, some de- 
finition of the word, or at least some conception of the leading 
ideas which it involves, will be necessary. With its complex 
varieties and elaborate developments we have no concern here: 
for, if Gnosticism can be found at all in the records of the 


pass over with ver. 11 to the Judaizers, 
with whom Col. ii. 16 sq. is exclusively 
concerned,’ He supposes therefore 
that ii. 8—ro refers to ‘pure Gnostics,’ 
and ii. 16—23 to ‘pure Judaizers.’ 
To this it is sufficient to answer (1) 
That, if the two elements be so an- 
tagonistic, they managed nevertheless 
to reconcile their differences; for we 
find them united in several Judzo- 
Gnostic heresies in the first half of 
the second century, fuvdpocay ydp, 
bvres ExSioTo-7d mplv, wip kal Oddacca, 
kal 7a mlor édetarny; (2) That the 
two passages are directly connected 
together by 7a croxela Tov Kéopov, 
which occurs in both vv. 8, 20; (3) 
That it is not a simple transition once 
for all from the Gnostic to the Judaic 
element, but the epistle passes to and 
fro several times from the one to the 
other; while no hint is given that two 


separate heresies are attacked, but on 
the contrary the sentences are con- 
nected in a logical sequence (e.g. ver. 
Q brt, 10 ds, rr ev @, 12 ev G, 13 Kal, 


16 ody), Lhope to makethis point clear, , 


in my notes on the passage. 

The hypothesis of more than one 
heresy is maintained also by Hein- 
richs (Koppe N. T. vu. Part 2, 1803). At 
an earlier date it seems to be favoured 
by Grotius (notes on ii. 16, 21); but 
his language is not very explicit. And 
earlier still Calvin in his argument to 
the epistle writes, ‘ Putant aliqui duo 
fuisse hominum genera, qui abducere 
tentarent Colossenses ab evangelii pu- 
ritate,’ but rejects this view as uncalled 
for. 

The same question is raised with 
regard to the heretical teachers of the 
Pastoral Epistles, and should pro- 
bably be answered in the same way. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 77 


Apostolic age, it will obviously appear in a simple and ele- 
mentary form. Divested of its accessories and presented in its 
_ barest outline, it is not difficult of delineation '. 

1. As the name attests’, Gnosticism implies the possession 1. Intel- 
of a superior wisdom, which is hidden from others. It makes‘a oe 
distinction between the select few who have this higher gift, rain tre 
and the vulgar many who are without it. Faith, blind faith, ism. 
suffices the latter, while knowledge is the exclusive possession . 
of the former. Thus it recognises a separation of intellectual 
caste in religion, introducing the distinction of an esoteric 
and an exoteric doctrine, and interposing an initiation of some 
kind or other between the two classes. In short it is animated 
by the exclusive aristocratic spirit*, which distinguishes the 
ancient religions, and from which it was a main function of 
Christianity to deliver mankind. : 

2. This was its spirit; and the intellectual questions, on 2. Specu- 
which its energies were concentrated and to which it professed nee 
to hold the key, were mainly twofold. How can the work of @2ostic- 
creation be explained ? and, How are we to account for the ex- __ 
istence of evil‘? To reconcile the creation of the world and Creation 
’ the existence of evil with the conception of God as the abso- eal ia 
lute Being, was the problem which all the Gnostic systems set Se 
themselves to solve. It will be seen that the two questions 
cannot be treated independently but have a very close and 


intimate connexion with each other, 


1 The chief authorities for the his- 
tory of Gnosticism are NEANDER 
Church History 11. p. 1 sq.; Baur Die 
Christliche Gnosis (Ttibingen, 1835); 
Marter Histoire Critique du Gnos- 
ticisme (2nd ed., Strasbourg and Paris, 
1843); R. A. Lipsrus Gnosticismus in 
Ersch u. Gruber s. v. (Leipzig, 1860) ; 
Manse Gnostic Heresies of the First 
and Second Centuries (London, 1875) ; 
and for Gnostic art, Kine Gnostics 
and their Remains (London 1864). 

2 See esp. Iren. i. 6. 1 8q., Clem. 
Alex. Strom. ii. p. 433 8g. (Potter). On 
the words réXecot, rvevparcxol, by which 


they designated the possessors of this 
higher gnosis, see the notes on Col. i. 
28, and Phil. iii. rs. 

8 See Neander ].c. p. 1 sq., from 
whom the epithet is borrowed. 

* The fathers speak of this as the 
main question about which the Gno- 
stics busy themselves; Unde malum? 
wobev  Kaxla; Tertull. de Prescr. 7, 
adv. Marc, 1. 2, Eus. H. E. v. 27; 
passages quoted by Baur Christliche 
Gnosis p. 19. On the leading concep- 
tions of Gnosticism see especially Ne- 
ander, 1. ¢. p. 9 sq, 


78 THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


Existence The Gnostic argument ran as follows: Did God create the 

Sei. be World out of nothing, evolve it from Himself? Then, God 

explained? being perfectly good and creation having resulted from His 
sole act without any opposing or modifying influence, evil 
would have been impossible; for otherwise we are driven to 
the conclusion that God created evil. 

Matter This solution being rejected as impossible, the Gnostic was 

aad obliged to postulate some antagonistic principle independent 
of God, by which His creative energy was thwarted and limited. 
This opposing principle, the kingdom of evil, he conceived to 
be the world of matter. The precise idea of its mode of 
operation varies in different Gnostic systems. It is sometimes 
regarded as a dead passive resistance, sometimes as a turbulent 
active power. But, though the exact point of view may shift, 
the object contemplated is always the same. In some way or 
other evil is regarded as residing in the material, sensible 
world,. Thus Gnostic speculation on the existence of evil ends 
in a dualism. 

Creation, This point being conceded, the ulterior question arises: 

Bo heat How then is creation possible? How can the Infinite com- 
municate with the Finite, the Good with the Evil? How can 
God act upon matter? God is perfect, absolute, incompre- 
hensible. 

This, the Gnostic went on to argue, could only have been 
possible by some self-limitation on the part of God. God must 
express Himself in some way. There must be some evolution, 

Doctrine some effluence, of Deity. Thus the Divine Being germinates, as 
ame it were; and the first germination again evolves a second from 
itself in like manner. In this way we obtain a series of succes- 
sive emanations, which may be more or fewer, as the requirements 
of any particular system demand. In each successive evolution 
the Divine element is feebler. ‘They sink gradually lower and 
lower in the scale, as they are farther removed from their 
source; until at length contact with matter is possible, and 
creation ensues. These are the emanations, eons, spirits, or 
angels, of Gnosticism, conceived as more or less concrete and 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 79 


personal according to the different aspects in which they are 
regarded in different systems. 

3. Such is the bare outline (and nothing more is needed 3. Practi- 
for my immediate purpose) of the speculative views of Gnostic- ones 
ism. But it is obvious that these views must have exerted *™ 
a powerful influence on the ethical systems of their advocates, 
and thus they would involve important practical consequences. 

If matter.is-the principle of eyil, it is of infinite moment for a 
man to know how he can avoid its baneful influence and thus 
keep his higher nature unclogged and unsullied. 

To this practical question two directly opposite answers Tyo oppo- 
were given’: eee 

(i) On the one hand, it was contended that the desired (i) Rigid 
end might best be attained by a rigorous abstinence. Thus *¢ctHcism. 
communication with matter, if it could not be entirely avoided, 
might be reduced to a minimum. Its grosser defilements 
at all events would be escaped. The material part of man 
would be subdued and mortified, if it could not be annihilated ; 
and the spirit, thus set free, would be sublimated, and rise to 
its proper level. Thus the ethics of Gnosticism pointed in the 
first instance to a strict asceticism. 

(ii) But obviously the results thus attained are very slight (ii) Un- 
and inadequate. Matter is about us everywhere. We do but 7esiained 
touch the skirts of the evil, when we endeavour to fence our- 
selves about by prohibitive ordinances, as, for instance, when we 
enjoin a spare diet or forbid marriage. Some more compre- 
hensive rule is wanted, which shall apply to every contingency 
and every moment of our lives. Arguing in this way, other 
Gnostic teachers arrived at an ethical rule directly opposed to 
the former. ‘Cultivate an entire indifference, they said, 

‘to the world of sense. Do not give it a thought one way or 


1 On this point see Clem. Strom. iii. poov’vns karayyé\dovar, with the whole 
5 (p. 529) els Ovo dueXOvres mpdyuara d- passage which follows. As examples 
mwagas Tas alpéces dmroxpwiueda ai- of the one extreme may be instanced 
rots’ 7 yap To ddvaddpws Sf» diddo- the Carpocratians and Cainites: of the 
kovow, 7 7d vméprovoy dyovoa éyxed- other the Encratites. 
reav bia SuoceBelas Kal girarexGn- 


So 


Original 
independ- 
ence of 
Gnostic- 
ism and 
its subse- 
quent con- 
nexion 
withChris- 
tianity. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


the other, but follow your own impulses. The ascetic prin- 
ciple assigns a certain importance to matter. The ascetic fails 
in consequence to assert his own independence. The true rule 
of life is to treat matter as something alien to you, towards 
which you have no duties or obligations and which you can 
use or leave unused as you like’’ In this way the reaction from 
rigid asceticism led to the opposite extreme of unrestrained 
licentiousness, both alike springing from the same false concep- 
tion of matter as the principle of evil. 

Gnosticism, as defined by these characteristic features, has 
obviously no necessary connexion with Christianity*®. Christi- 
anity would naturally arouse it to unwonted activity, by lead- 
ing men to dwell more earnestly on the nature and power of 
evil, and thus stimulating more systematic thought on the 
theological questions which had already arrested attention, 
After no long time Gnosticism would absorb into its system 
more or fewer Christian elements, or Christianity in some of 
its forms would receive a tinge from Gnosticism. But the 
thing itself had an independent root, and seems to have been 


1 See for instance the description 
of the Carpocratians in Iren. i. 25. 3 8q., 
ii. 32. 1 8q., Hippol. Her. vii. 32, Epi- 
phan. Her. xxvii, 2 s8q.; from which 
passages it appears that they justified 
their moral profligacy on the principle 
that the highest perfection consists in 
the most ccinplete contempt of mun- 
dane things. 

2 It will be seen from the descrip- 
tion in the text, that Gnosticism (as 
I have defined it) presupposes only a 
belief in one God, the absolute Being, 
as against the vulgar polytheism. All 
its essential features, as a speculative 
system, may be explained from this 
simple element of belief, without any 
intervention of specially Christian or 
even Jewish doctrine. Christianity 
added two.new elements to it; (1) the 
idea of Redemption, (2) the person of 
Christ, To explain the former, and to 


find a place for the latter, henceforth 
become prominent questions which 
press for solution; and Gnosticism in 
its several developments undergoes 
various modifications in the endeavour 
to solve them. Redemption must be 
set in some relation to the fundamen- 
tal Gnostic conception of the antagon- 
ism between God and matter; and 
Christ must have some place found 
for Him in the fundamental Gnostic 
doctrine of emanations. 

If it be urged that there is no autho- 
rity for the name ‘ Gnostic’ as applied 
to these pre-Christian theosophists, I 
am not concerned to prove the con- 
trary, 88 my main position is not 
affected thereby. The term ‘ Gnostic’ 
is here used, only because no other is 
80 convenient or so appropriate. See 
note 2, p. 81. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


prior in time. The probabilities of the case, and the scanty 
traditions of history, alike point to this independence of the 
two’, If so, it is a matter of little moment at what precise 
time the name ‘Gnostic’ was adopted, whether before or after 
contact with Christianity ; for we are concerned only with the 


growth and direction of thought which the name represents’. 


If then Gnosticism was not an offspring of Christianity, Its alli- 
ance with 


but a direction of religious speculation which existed indepen- 


dently, we are at liberty to entertain the question whether i 
did not form an alliance with Judaism, contemporaneously anity. 


with or prior to its alliance with Christianity. There is at 
least no obstacle which bars such an investigation at the out- 


1 This question will require closer 
investigation when I come to discuss 
the genuineness of the Epistle to the 
Colossians. Meanwhile I content my- 
self with referring to Baur Christliche 
Gnosis p. 29 8g. and Lipsius Gnosti- 
cismus p. 230 8q. Both these writers 
concede, and indeed insist upon, the 
non-Christian basis of Gnosticism, at 
least so far as I have maintained it in 
the text. Thus for instance Baur 
says (p. 52), ‘Though Christian gnosis 
is the completion of gnosis, yet the 
Christian element in gnosis is not so 
essential as that gnosis cannot still be 
gnosis even without this element. But 
just as we can abstract it from the 
Christian element,so can we also gostill 
further and regard even the Jewish as 
not strictly an essential element of 
gnosis.’ Inanother work (Die drei ersten 
Jahrhunderte p. 167, 1st ed.) he ex- 
presses himself still more strongly to 
the same effect, but the expressions 
are modified in the second edition. 

2 We may perhaps gather from the 
notices which are preserved that, though 
the substantive yvao.s was used with 
more or less precision even before con- 
tact with Christianity to designate the 
superior illumination of these opinions, 


COL. 


the adjective yyworcxol was not distinct- 
ly applied to those who maintained 
them till somewhat later. Still it is 
possible that pre-Christian Gnostics 
already so designated themselves. 
Hippolytus speaks of the Naassenes 
or Ophites as giving themselves this 
name; Her. v. 6 pera 5é Tadra ére- 
KdAecav éauvto’s yyrwortko’s, packovres 
pova. TH Baby yiwwoKxew; comp. 8§ 8, 
11. His language seems to imply 
(though it is not explicit) that they 
were the first to adopt the name. The 
Ophites were plainly among the earliest 
Gnostic sects, as the heathen element 
is still predominant in their teaching, 
and their Christianity seems to have 
been a later graft on their pagan theo- 
sophy ; but at what stage in their 
development they adopted the name 
yvwortkol does not appear. Irenzus 
(Her. i. 25. 6) speaks of the name as 
affected especially by the Carpocra- 
tians. For the use of the substantive 
yveors See 1 Cor. viii. 1, xiii. 2, 8, 1 Tim, 
vi. 20, and the note on Col. ii. 3: comp. 
Rev. ii. 24 otries odk éyrwoay Ta Babéa 
ToU Zarava, ws Aéyouow (as explained 
by the passage already quoted from 
Hippol. Her. v. 6; see Galatians, 
P- 309, note 3). 
6 


SI 


Judaism 
t before 


$2 


The three 
seets of 
the Jews. 


Sadducee- 
ism, pure- 
hy nega- 
tive. 


Pharisee- 
ism and 
Essenism 
compared. 


Elusive 


features of 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


set. If this should prove to be the case, then we have a 
combination which prepares the way for the otherwise strange 
phenomena presented in the Epistle to the Colossians. 

Those, who have sought analogies to the three Jewish sects 
among the philosophical schools of Greece and Rome, have com- 
pared the Sadducees to the Epicureans, the Pharisees to the 
Stoics, and the Essenes to the Pythagoreans. Like all historical 
parallels, this comparison is open to misapprehension: but, 
carefully guarded, the illustration is pertinent and instructive. 

With the Sadducees we have no concern here. Whatever 
respect may be due to their attitude in the earlier stages of 
their history, at the Christian era at least they have ceased to 
deserve our sympathy; for their position has become mainly 
negative. They take their stand on denials—the denial of the 
existence of angels, the denial of the resurrection of the dead, 
the denial of a progressive development in the Jewish Church. 
In these negative tendencies, in the materialistic teaching of the 
sect, and in the moral consequences to which it led, a very 
rough resemblance to the Epicureans will appear’. 

The two positive sects were the Pharisees and the Essenes. 
Both alike were strict observers of the ritual law; but, while 
the Pharisee was essentially practical, the tendency of the 
Essene was to mysticism ; while the Pharisee was a man of 
the world, the Essene was a member of a brotherhood. In this 
respect the Stoic and the Pythagorean were the nearest counter- 
parts which the history of Greek philosophy and social life could 
offer. These analogies indeed are suggested by Josephus himself”. 

While the portrait of the Pharisee is distinctly traced and 


Essenism, easily recognised, this is not the case with the Essene. The 


Essene is the great enigma of Hebrew history. Admired alike 
by Jew, by Heathen, and by Christian, he yet remains a dim 
vague outline, on which the highest subtlety of successive 


1 The name Epicureans seems to 2 For the Pharisees see Vit. 2 rapa- 
be applied tothem eveninthe Talmud; mdAjoids éore 7H wap’ "EXAnoe ZrwikT 
see Hisenmenger’s Entdecktes Juden- deyoudévy: for the Essenes, Ant. xv. 10. 
thum 1. pp. 95, 6948q-; comp. Keim 4 dialry xpipevoy ry map “EAAnow vd 
Geschichte Jesu von Nazara i. p. 281. Ilv@aydpou caradederyuévy. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 83 


critics has been employed to supply a substantial form and an 
adequate colouring. An ascetic mystical dreamy recluse, he 
seems too far removed from the hard experience of life to be 
capable of realisation. 

And yet by careful use of the existing materials the A suffici- 
portrait of this sect may be so far restored, as to establish with rie bere 
a reasonable amount of probability the point with which alone {#! ot, 
we are here concerned. It will appear from the delineations attainable. 
of ancient writers, more especially of Philo and Josephus, that 
the characteristic feature of Essenism was a particular direction 
of mystic speculation, involving a rigid asceticism as its prac- 
tical consequence. Following the definition of Gnosticism 
which has been already given, we may not unfitly call this 
tendency Gnostic. 

Having in this statement anticipated the results, I shall aa i 
now endeavour to develope the main features of Essenism; Essenism. 
and, while doing so, I will ask my readers to bear in mind 
the portrait of the Colossian heresy in St Paul, and to mark 
the resemblances, as the enquiry proceeds’. 

The Judaic element is especially prominent in the life and 
teaching of the sect. The Essene was exceptionally rigorous 


in his observance of the Mosaic ritual. In his strict abstinence 


1 The really important contempo- 
rary sources of information respecting 
the Essenes are JosEpHus, Bell. Jud. 
ii. 8. 2—13, Ant. xiii. 5. 9, xviii. 1. 5, 
Vit. 2 (with notices of individual Es- 
senes Bell. Jud. i. 3.5, ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4, 
Bs 0, eA NES M1. (TT, XV s (LO. Ay. 5) 
and PuiLo, Quod omnis probus liber 
§ 128q. (I. p. 4578q.), Apol. pro Jud. 
(11. p. 632 sq., a fragment quoted by 
Eusebius Prep. Evang. viii. 11). The 
account of the Therapeutes by the 
latter writer, de Vita Contemplativa 
(II. p. 471 8q.), must also be consulted, 
as describing a closely allied sect. To 
these should be added the short notice 
of Puiny, N. H. v. 15. 17, as expressing 
the views of 2 Roman writer. His ac- 


count, we may conjecture, was taken 
from Alexander Polyhistor, a contem- 
porary of Sulla, whom he mentions 
in his prefatory elenchus as one of 
his authorities for this 5th book, and 
who wrote a work On the Jews (Clem. 
Alex. Strom. i. 21, p. 396, Huseb. 
Prep. Ev. ix. 17). Significant men- 
tion of the Essenes is found also 
in the Christian Hecrsirpus (Euseb. 
H. E., iv. 22) and in the heathen Dion 
Curysostom (Synesius Dion 3, p. 39). 
EprreHanivus (Her. pp. 28 8q., 40 8q.) 
discusses two separate sects, which he 
calls Essenes and Osseans respectively. 
These are doubtless different names of 
the same persons, His account is, as 
usual, confused and inaccurate, but 


6—2 


84 


Observ- 
ance of the 
Mosaic 
law. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


from work on the sabbath he far surpassed all the other Jews. 
He would not light a fire, would not move a vessel, would not 


perform even the most ordinary functions of life’. 


The whole 


day was given up to religious exercises and to exposition of the 


has a certain value, All other autho- 
ritiesaresecondary. H1pronytvs, Her. 
ix. 18—28, follows Josephus (Bell. Jud. 
ii. 8. 28q.) almost exclusively. Por- 
PHYRY also (de Abstinentia, iv. 11 8q.) 
copies this same passage of Josephus, 
with a few unimportant exceptions 
probably taken from a lost work by 
the same author, mpds Tovs “EXXnvas, 
which he mentions by name. EvsE- 
Bius (Prep. Evang. viii. 11 8q., ix. 3) 
contents himself with quoting Philo 
and Porphyry. Soxinus (Polyh. xxxv. 
9 8q.) merely abstracts Pliny. Tat- 
MUDICAL and RABBINICAL passages, SUp- 
posed to contain references to the Es- 
senes, are collected by Frankel in the 
articles mentioned in a later para- 
graph; but the allusions are most un- 
certain (see the second dissertation on 
the Essenes). The authorities for the 
history of the Essenes are the subject 
of an article by W. Clemens in the 
Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 1869, p. 3288q. 

The attack on the genuineness of 
Philo’s treatise De Vita Contemplativa 
made by Gratz (m1. p. 463 sq.) has 
been met by Zeller (Philosophie, 111. ii. 
p. 255 sq.), whose refutation is com- 
plete. The attack of the same writer 
(111. p. 464) on the genuineness of the 
treatise Quod omnis probus liber Zeller 
considers too frivolous to need refuting 
(ib. p. 235). A refutation will be found 
in the above-mentioned article of W. 
Clemens (p. 3408q.). 

Of modern writings relating to the 
Essenes the following may be espe- 
cially mentioned; BrExLERMAaNN Ueber 
Essder u. Therapeuten, Berlin 1821; 
Grroren Philo 11. p. 2998q.; DABNE 
Ersch u. Gruber’s Encyklopddie 8. v.; 
FRangeEu Zeitschrift fiir die religidsen 


Interessen des Judenthums 1846 p. 441 
8q., Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte u. 
Wissenschaft des Judenthums 1853, 
p- 308q., 61 sq.; BorrazR Ueber den 
Orden der Essder, Dresden 1849; 
Ewaup Geschichte des Volkes Israel rv. 
Pp. 4208q., VII p. 153 8q.; RirscHn 
Entstehung der Altkatholischen Kirche 
p. 179 sq. (ed. 2, 1857), and Theolo- 
gische Jahrbiicher 1855, p. 315 8q.3 
Jost Geschichte des Judenthums t. p. 
207 8q.; GRraETz Geschichte der Juden 
III. p. 79 8q., 463 sq. (ed. 2, 1863); 
HinGEenretD Jiidische Apocalyptik p. 
245 8q., and Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 
K. P. 0780.5, Zt.) ps 94318G., -Stv. pe 
30 8q.; WeEstcorr Smith’s Dictionary 
of the Bible s. v.; Ginssure The 
Essenes, London 1864, and in Kitto’s 
Cyclopedia 8. v.; DErensoure L’His- 
toire et la Géographie de la Palestine 
p. 166 sq., 460 sq.; Keim Geschichte 
Jesu von Nazara I. p. 282 sq.; Haus- 
RATH Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte 
I. p. 133 8q.; Lipstus Schenkel’s Bibel 
Lexikon 8. v.; HirzreLp Geschichte 
des Volkes Israel 1. 368 8q., 3888q., 
509 sq. (ed. 2, 1863); ZELLER Philo- 
sophie der Griechen itl. 2, p. 234 8q. 
(ed. 2, 1868); Lanaen Judenthum in 
Paldstina p. 1908q.; Lowy Kritisch-tal- 
mudisches Lexicon 8. v. (Wien 1863); 
Weiss Zur Geschichte der jiidischen 
Tradition p. 120 sq. (Wien). 

1 BJ. ii. 8. 9 puddooovra .. . Tais 
éBdbuacwepywy éparrecbat Siapopwrara 
*Tovdalwy amrdvrwv* ob povov yap tpodas 
éauTols mpd Hucpas wuds Tapackevadfovery, 
ws unde wip évavorev éxelvy TH Huepg, GAN’ 
ovdéoKedds Te MeTaAKivRoat Oappodowk.T.r. 
Hippolytus (Her. ix. 25) adds that some 
of them do not so much as leave their 
beds on this day. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


Scriptures’. 
giver. 
reverence. 
death’. 


His respect for the law extended also to the law- 
After God, the name of Moses was held in the highest 
He who blasphemed his name was punished with 
In all these points the Essene was an exaggeration, 


almost a caricature, of the Pharisee. 
So far the Essene has not departed from the principles of Externsl 


normal Judaism; but here the divergence begins. 


In three 


main points we trace the working of influences which must 


have been derived from external sources. 


respects contradicted the tenets of the other sect. 


The honour- 


able, and even exaggerated, estimate of marriage, which was 
characteristic of the Jew, and of the Pharisee as the typical Jew, 
found no favour with the Hssene*. Marriage was to him an 
abomination. Those Essenes who lived together as members of 
an order, and in whom the principles of the sect were carried to 
their logical consequences, eschewed it altogether. To secure 
the continuance of their brotherhood they adopted children, 
whom they brought up in the doctrines and practices of the 
community. There were others however who took a different 
view. They accepted marriage, as necessary for the preservation 
of the race. Yet even with them it seems to have been regard- 
They fenced it off by stringent 
rules, demanding a three years’ probation and enjoining various 


ed only as an inevitable evil. 


1 Philo Quod omn. prob. lib. § 12. 
Of the Therapeutes see Philo Vit. Cont. 
$ 3) 4 

2 Bod. 1. © § 9 oéBas 5é péyorov 
map avrots mera Tov Oedv 7d dvoua Too 
vopobérou, kav Prachyunoy Tis els ToUTOV 
(i.e. Tov vomobérny), KoddferOa Oavary: 
comp. § Io. 

$B. Jl ce. § 2 ydmov pev irepopla 
wap’ aurois... Tas Tov yuvaikav doed- 
yelas pudraccduevoe kal pndeulay rypetv 
mereouévor Thy mpds ta mlorw, Ant. 
xviii. 1.5; Philo Fragm. p. 633 -yduov 
TapyThoavro mera TOU Kapepovrws doxeiv 


éyxpateav’ Hooalwy yap ovdels d-yerat 
yuvatka, diate pldavrov 7} yuvh Kal gndo- 
TuTov ov petpiws Kal dSewdv dvdpds 7On 
mapacadevoa, with more to the same 
purpose. This peculiarity astonished 
the heathen Pliny, N. H. v. 15, ‘gens 
sola et in toto orbe preter ceteros mira, 
sine ulla femina, venere abdicata... 
In diem ex gxquo convenarum turba 
renascitur large frequentantibus... 
Ita per seculorum millia (incredibile 
dictu) gens wterna est, in qua nemo 
nascitur. Tam focunda illis aliorum 
vites peenitentia est.’ 


85 


elements 
super- 
added. 


to 


matriage, 


86 


meats and 


drinks 


and oil for 
anointing. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


purificatory rites. The conception of marriage, as quickening 
and educating the affections and thus exalting and refining 
human life, was wholly foreign to their minds. Woran was 
a mere instrument of temptation in their eyes, deceitful, 
faithless, selfish, jealous, misled and misleading by her passions. 

But their ascetic tendencies did not stop here. The 
Pharisee was very careful to observe the distinction of meats 
lawful and unlawful, as laid down by the Mosaic code, and even 
rendered these ordinances vexatious by minute definitions of 
his own. But the Essene went far beyond him. He drank 
no wine, he did not touch animal food. His meal consisted of 
a piece of bread and a single mess of vegetables. Even this 
simple fare was prepared for him by special officers consecrated 
for the purpose, that it might be free from all contamination’. 
Nay, so stringent were the rules of the order on this point, 
that when an Essene was excommunicated, he often died of 
starvation, being bound by his oath not to take food prepared 
by defiled hands, and thus being reduced to eat the very grass 
of the field’*. 

Again, in hot climates oil for anointing the body is almost 
a necessary of life. From this too the Essenes strictly_ab- 
stained. Even if they were accidentally smeared, they were 
careful at once to wash themselves, holding the mere touch to 
be a contamination *. 


1 B.J.1.¢.§ 13. Josephus speaks 


evTeAn’ Kai dor ares, ovs of &8podiaTo- 


of these as érepov "Eoonvav tdypua, 6 dl- 
aurav mev kal 20y kal vdusua Tots addots 
ouoppovorr, duecrds Ser 7H KaTa yapov doéne 
We may suppose that they correspond- 
ed to the third order of a Benedictine 
or Franciscan brotherhood; so that, 
living in the world, they would observe 
the rule up to a certain point, but 
would not be bound by vows of celibacy 
or subject to the more rigorous dis- 
cipline of the sect. 

2 B. J. 1. ¢. § 5; see Philo’s account 
of the Therapeutes, Vit. Cont. § 4 ov 
robvrat 5& moduredes ovdév, add apTov 


TATOL TapapTvovaly Voowmm' ToTdy Vdwp 
vapariatoy avrocs €or; and again more 
to the same effect in §g: and compare 
the Essene story of St James in Hege- 
sippus {Euseb. H. E. ii. 23) olvov kal 
alkepa ovx émev, ode Eupuxov epaye. 
Their abstention from animal food 
accounts for Porphyry’s giving them 
so prominent a place in his treatise: 
see Zeller, p. 243. 

8 Bud plGay Ge 

4B. J.1. ce § 3 Kndtda 52 vrodauBd- 
vovot 7d €Aatov K.T.A.; Hegesippus l. c. 
€darov ovK nrelWaro. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 87 


From these facts it seems clear that Essene abstinence was Underly-_ 
something more than the mere exaggeration of Pharisaic prin- aie df this 
ciples. The rigour of the Pharisee was based on his obligation of *°¢#is™- 
obedience to an absolute external law. The Essene introduced 
a new principle. He condemned in any form the gratification 
of the natural cravings, nor would he consent to regard it as 
moral or immoral only according to the motive which suggested 
it or the consequences which flowed from it. Jt was in 
itself an absolute evil. He sought to disengage himself, as far 
as possible, from the conditions of physical life. In shoxt, in 
‘the asceticism of the Essene we seem to see the germ of that 
Gnostic dualism which regards matter as the principle, or at 
‘least the abode, of evil. 

2. And, when we come to investigate the speculative tenets 2. Specu- 
of the sect, we shall find that the Hssenes have diverged nae a 
appreciably from the common type of Jewish orthodoxy. 

(i) Attention was directed above to their respect for (i) Tend- 
Moses and the Mosaic law, which they shared in common with area 
the Pharisee. But there was another side to their theological *?- 
teaching. Though our information is somewhat defective, still 
in the scanty notices which are preserved we find sufficient 
Indications that they had absorbed some foreign elements of 
religious thought into their system. Thus at day-break they 
addressed certain prayers, which had been handed down from 
their forefathers, to the Sun, ‘as if entreating him to rise’.’ 

They were careful also to conceal and bury all polluting sub- 


stances, so as not ‘to insult the rays of the god®.’ We can- 


1 B.J.1.¢.§ 5 mpos ye why 70 Belov 
Llws evoeBets* rplv yap dvacxeiv Tov AALov 
ovdéev POéyyovrat Tay BeBnAwY, martplous 
dé twas els adrdv evxyds, Worep lkeredvovres 
avaretAat. Compare what Philo says 
of the Therapenutes, Vit. Cont. § 3 
mou ev avicxovros evnueplay alrovmevot 
Thy buTws evnueplav, pwrds ovpaviov THY 
didvovay abrov avarAnoOjvac, andib.§ 11. 
On the attempt of Frankel (Zeitschr. 
p. 458) to resolve this worship, which 


Josephus states to be offered to the sun 
(els avrov), into the ordinary prayers of 
the Pharisaic Jew at day-break, see the 
second dissertation on the Essenes. 
2B, J.1.¢. § 9 ws wh ras avyas vBpl- 
fovev Tov Oeov. There can be no doubt, 
I think, that by rod @eod is meant the 
‘sun-god’; comp. Eur. Heracl. 749 
Ge0d gacoluBpora avyal, Alc. 722 7d 
éyyos ToiTo Tov Geod, Appian Pref. g 
Svouevov rou Beov, Lib. 113 Tov Geov 


88 


(ii) Resur- 
rection of 
the body 
denied. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


not indeed suppose that they regarded the sun as more than a 
symbol of the unseen power who gives light and life; but their 
outward demonstrations of reverence were sufficiently promi- 
nent to attach to them, or to a sect derived from them, the 
epithet of ‘Sun-worshippers’,’ and some connexion with the 
characteristic feature of Parsee devotion at once suggests itself. 
The practice at all events stands in strong contrast to the 
denunciations of worship paid to the ‘hosts of heaven’ in the 


Hebrew prophets. 


(ii) Nor again is it an insignificant fact that, while the 
Pharisee maintained the resurrection of the body as a cardinal 
article of his faith, the Essene restricted himself to a belief in 


the immortality of the soul. 


The soul, he maintained, was con- 
fined in the flesh, as in a prison-house. 
from these fetters would it be truly free. 
soar aloft, rejoicing in its newly attained liberty’. 


Only when disengaged 
Then it would 
This 


doctrine accords with the fundamental conception of the 


malignity of matter. 


mept del\ynv éorépay dvros, Civ. iv. 79 
Suvovros pri rob Geod: comp. Herod. ii. 
24. Dr Ginsburg has obliterated this 
very important touch by translating rds 
avyas Tod Geob ‘the Divine rays’ (Essenes 
p. 47). It is a significant fact that 
Hippolytus (Wer. ix. 25) omits the 
words Tov Ged, evidently regarding them 
as a stumbling-block. How Josephus 
expressed himself in the original He- 
brew of the Bellum Judaicum, it is 
vain to speculate: but the Greek trans- 
lation was authorised, if not made, by 
him. 

1 Epiphan. Her. xix. 2, xx. 3 ’Oc- 
onvol 5é weréorncay dd "lovéaicpuot els 
Ty Tév Zapwalwy atpeow, liii. 1, 2 Dap- 
ato. yap épmnvedovrac ‘Hdsaxol, from 
the Hebrew WDW ‘the sun.’ The 
historical connexion of the Sampsseans 
with the Essenes is evident from these 
passages: though it is difficult to say 
what their precise relations to each 


To those who held this conception a 


other were. See below, p. 374. 

2 B.J.1.¢. § 11 Kal ydp ppwra wap’ 
avrois 70e 7 Sbéa, POapTa pmev elvac Ta 
oupara Kat Thy UAnY ov pebvimov avrots, 
Tas 6é uxds abavdrous del Siamévew... 
éreday 6é dveOGar Tuv Kara odpKa dec- 
pav, ola Sh waxpas Sovdelas dwydday- 
pévas, Tore xalpew Kal werewpous Pépec- 
Oat x.7.X. To this doctrine the teach- 
ing of the Pharisees stands in direct 
contrast; ib. § 13: comp. also Ant. 
RV) Te 4505s 

Nothing can be more explicit than 
the language of Josephus. On theother 
hand Hippolytus (Her. ix. 27) says of 
them dporoyoto. yap Kat rhv odpxa 
dvacrhoecOar Kal écecOar dOdvarov dv 
Tpomov 76n dOdvards éoriv 4 PuxXh K.T.Ar.3 
but his authority is worthless on this 
point, as he can have had no personal 
knowledge of the facts: see Zeller p. 
251, note 2. Hilgenfeld takes a dif- 
ferent view; Zeitschr. XIv. p. 49. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 89 


resurrection of the body would be repulsive, as involving a 
perpetuation of evil. 

(111) But they also separated themselves from the religious (iii) Pro- 
belief of the orthodox Jew in another respect, which would meee 
provoke more notice. While they sent gifts to the temple 
at Jerusalem, they refused to offer sacrifices there’. It would 
appear that the slaughter of animals was altogether forbidden 
by their creed*, It is certain that they were afraid of con- 
tracting some ceremonial impurity by offering victims in the 
temple. Meanwhile they had sacrifices, bloodless sacrifices, of 
their own. They regarded their simple meals with their 
accompanying prayers and thanksgiving, not only as devotional 
but even as sacrificial rites. Those who prepared and presided 
over these meals were their consecrated priests *. 

(iv) In what other respects they may have departed from, (iv) Eso- 
or added to, the normal creed of Judaism, we do not know. pena oe 
But it is expressly stated that, when a novice after passing *8*!s 
through the probationary stages was admitted to the full privi- 
leges of the order, the oath of admission bound him ‘ to conceal 
nothing from the members of the sect, and to report nothing 
concerning them to others, even though threatened with death ; 
not to communicate any of their doctrines to anyone otherwise 
than as he himself had received them; but to abstain from 


robbery, and in like manner to guard carefully the books 


1 Ant. xviii. 1. 5 els 6¢ 7d lepdv dva- 
Ojpard re oréd\Aovtes Ovolas ovK éire- 
Rover Stadopdryte ayverdv, ds vopultoer, 
kal O¢ adrd elpyduevor TOU Kowvod Tepevic- 
patos ép atrav ras Ovolas émiredobar. 
So Philo Quod omn. prob. lib. § 12 de- 
scribes them as ov {ja kataOvovres GAN 
lepompemeis' tas éavtdy diavolas xata- 
oxevafew divobvres. 

2 The following considerations show 
that their abstention should probably 
be explained in this way: (1) Though 
the language of Josephus may be am- 
biguous, that of Philo is unequivocal 
on this point; (2) Their abstention 


from the temple-sacrifices cannot be 
considered apart from the fact that they 
ate no animal food: see above p. 86, 
note 2. (3) The Christianised Es- 
senes, or Ebionites, though strong 
Judaizers in many respects, yet dis- 
tinctly protested against the sacrifice 
of animals; see Clem. Hom. iii. 45, 52, 
and comp. Ritschl p.224. On this sub- 
ject see also Zeller p. 242 8q., and my 
second dissertation. 

3 Ant. xviii. 1. 5 lepets re [xetpo- 
Tovovar] &a molnow olrov Tre Kat Bopwpa- 
rw, B. J. ii, 8. 5 mpoxaredxerat 5 6 le- 
pevds Ths Tpopijs k.T.A.; see Ritschl p.181. 


90 


(v) Specu- 
lations on 
God and 
Creation. 


(vi) Magic- 
al charms. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


of their sect, and the names of the angels’’ It may be reason- 
ably supposed that more lurks under this last expression than 
meets the ear. This esoteric doctrine, relating to angelic beings, 
may have been another link which attached Essenism to the 
religion of Zoroaster”. At all events we seem to be justified 
in connecting it with the self-imposed service and worshipping 
of angels at Colossee: and we may well suspect that we have 
here a germ which was developed into the Gnostic doctrine of 
eons or emanations. 

(v) Ifso, it is not unconnected with another notice relating 
to Essene peculiarities. The Gnostic doctrine of intermediate 
beings between God and the world, as we have seen, was 
intimately connected with speculations respecting creation. 
Now we are specially informed that the Essenes, while leaving 
physical studies in general to speculative idlers (werewpo- 
Aécyais), as being beyond the reach of human nature, yet 
excepted from their general condemnation that philosophy 
which treats of the existence of God and the generation of the 
universe *, 

(vi) Mention has been made incidentally of certain secret 
books peculiar to the sect. The existence of such an apocryphal 
literature was a sure token of some abnormal development in 


doctrine *. In the passage quoted it is mentioned in relation to 


1B. J.1. ce. § 7 Spxous atrois burvoe 
ppixwdes...unre Kpvpew te Tedrs aipe- 
TLOTAS pinre éTépots avTady Te unvicev, kat 
dv méxpt Oavdrov tis Bid¢ynrat. ampods 
TovTots éuv¥ovot mndevl méev peradodvar 
Tow Soyuaruv érépws } ws adrds peré- 
AaBevr agéteoOar 6é Anorelas Kal ouvvTy- 
phoev ouoiws Ta Te THS alpécews avray 
BiBXla Kal 7a Tay ayyé\ov dvbuara. 
With this notice should be compared 
the Ebionite d.auaprupia, or protest of 
initiation, prefixed to the Clementine 
Homilies, which shows how closely 
the Christian Essenes followed the 
practice of their Jewish predecessors 
in this respect. See Zeller p. 254. 


2 See the second dissertation. 

3 Philo Omn. prob. lib. § 12 (p. 458) 
7d 5é hucixdv ws pelfov 7 Kata avOpwri- 
voy piow perewporeoxais amrodurévres, 
wiv cov adtod wept vmaptews Geotd kal 
THs TOU mavrds yevécews pirocopetrat. 

4 The word Apocrypha was used 
originally to designate the secret books 
which contained the esoteric doctrine 
ofasect. The secondary sense ‘spu- 
rious’ was derived from the general 
character of these writings, which were 
heretical, mostly Gnostic, forgeries. 
See Prof. Plumptre’s article Apocrypha 
in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, 
and the note on dréxpuda below, ii. 3. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


some form of angelology. Elsewhere their skill in prediction, 
for which they were especially famous, is connected with the 
perusal of certain ‘sacred books, which however are not 


described ?. 


But more especially, we are told that the Essenes 


studied with extraordinary diligence the writings of the 
ancients, selecting those especially which could be turned to 
profit for soul and body, and that from these they learnt the 


qualities of roots and the properties of stones”. 


1B. J. ii, 8. 12 elal dé &v adrtots of 
Kal Ta mé\ovTA TpoywuwoKey VIrLoxvodv- 
Tat, BiBros tepats Kal Siadipos ayvelas 
kal mpopytwv aropbéypacw éumatsorpi- 
Bovpevor* crdviov 6é, elzrore, év Tals mpo- 
ayopetocow dotoxyncovow. Dr Ginsburg 
(p. 49) translates BiBdoas tepats ‘ the 
sacred Scripture,’ and mpod@ynrév aro- 
g0éypacw ‘the sayings of the prophets’; 
but as the definite articles are wanting, 
the expressions cannot be so rendered, 
nor does there seem to be any refer- 
ence to the Canonical writings. 

We learn from an anecdote in Ant. 
xiii, 11. 2, that the teachers of this 
sect communicated the art of predic- 
tion to their disciples by instruction. 
We may therefore conjecture that with 
the Essenes this acquisition was con- 
nected with magic or astrology. At all 
events it ig not treated as a direct 
inspiration. 

2 B. J. ii. 8. 6 crovidgover 5é éxrd- 
mws wept Ta TOY Taday ovyypadupara, 
padoTa Ta mpds wHércrav Wuxijs Kal ow- 
patos éxéyovres’ évOev avrols mpos Oepa- 
relay maddy pifas re ddekeT prot Kal ALOwy 
lédrnres avepevvavra. This passage 
might seem at first sight to refer simply 
to the medicinal qualities of vegetable 
and mineral substances; buta compari- 
son with another notice in Josephus in- 
vestsit with a different meaning. In Ant. 
Vili. 2, 5 he states that Solomon, having 
received by divine inspiration the art 
of defeating demons for the advantage 
and healing of man (els apéAccay Kal 


This expres- 


Geparelay Trois dvOpumos), composed and 
left behind him charms (érwéds) by 
which diseases were allayed, anddiverse 
kinds of exorcisms (rpdrrous é£opxmoewr) 
by which demons were cast out. ‘This 
mode of healing,’ he adds, ‘is very 
powerful even to the present day’; and 
he then relates how, as he was credibly 
informed (icrépyca), one of his coun- 
trymen, Eleazar by name, had healed 
several persons possessed by demons 
in the presence of Vespasian and his 
sons and a number of officers and com- 
mon soldiers. This he did by applying 
to the nose of the possessed his ring, 
which had concealed in it one of the 
roots which Solomon had directed to 
be used, and thus drawing out the 
demon through the nostrils of the 
person smelling it. At the same time 
he adjured the evil spirit not to re- 
turn, ‘making mention of Solomon 
and repeating the charms composed 
by him.’ On one occasion this H- 
leazar gave ocular proof that the de- 
mon was exorcized; and thus, adds 
Josephus, capyjs 7 Dodoudvos Kabiararo 
aiveots kal cogla. On these books re- 
lating to the occult arts and ascribed 
to Solomon see Fabricius Cod. Pseud. 
Vet. Test. 1. p. 1036 sq., where many 
curious notices are gathered together. 
See especially Origen Jn Matth.Comm. 
Xxxv. § 110 (Il. p. 910), Pseudo-Just. 
Quest. 55. 

This interpretation explains all the 
expressions in the passage. The Néwv 


OI 


3. Exclu- 
sive spirit 
of Essen- 
ism. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


sion, as illustrated by other notices, points clearly to the study 
of occult sciences, and recalls the alliance with the practice 
of magical arts, which was a distinguishing feature of Gnos- 
ticism, and is condemned by Christian teachers even in the 
heresies of the Apostolic age. 

3. But the notice to which I have just alluded suggests 
a broader affinity with Gnosticism. Not only did the theo- 
logical speculations of the Essenes take a Gnostic turn, but 
they guarded their peculiar tenets with Gnostic reserve. They 
too had their esoteric doctrine which they looked upon as the 
exclusive possession of the privileged few; their ‘mysteries’ 
which it was a grievous offence to communicate to the un- 
initiated. This doctrine was contained, as we have seen, in an 
apocryphal literature. Their whole organisation was arranged 
so as to prevent the divulgence of its secrets to those without. 
The long period of noviciate, the careful rites of initiation, the 
distinction of the several orders* in the community, the solemn 
oaths by which they bound their members, were so many 
safeguards against a betrayal of this precious deposit, which 


1g and elsewhere, referring to magical 
arts, illustrates its use here. 


léiérnres naturally points to the use of 
charms or amulets, as may be seen e.g. 


from the treatise, Damigeron de Lapi- 
dibus, printed in the Spicil. Solemn. 111. 
p- 3248q.: comp. King Antique Gems 
Sect. rv, Gnostics and their Remains. 
The reference to ‘the books of the an- 
cients’ thus finds an adequate expla- 
nation. On the other hand the only 
expression which seemed to militate 
against this view, dAezirjpioe pleat, is 
justified by the story in the Antiqui- 
ties; comp. also Clem. Hom. viii. 14. 
It should be added also that Hippolytus 
(Her. ix. 22) paraphrases the language 
of Josephus so as to give it this sense ; 
mavu 5¢ weptépyws exovor wept Bordvas 
kal AlOous, weptepydrepoe bytes mpos 
Tas ToUTwY évepyelas, PagKOVTES LY MAT NP 
Taira vyevovévar. The sense which ze- 
plepyos (‘curiosus’) bears in Acts xix. 


Thus these Essenes were dealers in 
charms, rather than physicians. And 
yet it is quite possible that along with 
this practice of the occult sciences they 
studied the healing art in its nobler 
forms. The works of Alexander of 
Tralles, an eminent ancient physician, 
constantly recommend the use of such 
charms, of which some obviously come 
from a Jewish source and not impro- 
bably may have been taken from these 
Solomonian books to which Josephus 
refers, A number of passages from 
this and other writers, specifying 
charms of various kinds, are given in 
Becker and Marquardt Rom. Alterth. 
Iv. p. 1168q. See also Spencer’s note 
on Orig. c. Cels. p. 17 8q. 

1 See especially B. J. ii. 8. 7, 10. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


they held to be restricted to the inmost circle of the brother- 
hood. 

In selecting these details I have not attempted to give a 
finished portrait of Essenism. From this point of view the de- 
lineation would be imperfect and misleading: for I have left out 
of sight the nobler features of the sect, their courageous en- 
durance, their simple piety, their brotherly love. My object was 
solely to call attention to those features which distinguish 
it from the normal type of Judaism, and seem to justify the 


93 


attribution of Gnostic influences. And here it has been seen The three 


that the three characteristics, which were singled out above as 


Gnostic- 


distinctive of Gnosticism, reappear in the Essenes; though it ee 
— z e in e 
has been convenient to consider them in the reversed order. Essenes. 


This Jewish sect exhibits the same exclusiveness in the com- 
munication of its doctrines. Its theological speculations take 
the same direction, dwelling on the mysteries of creation, 
regarding matter as the abode of evil, and postulating certain 
intermediate spiritual agencies as necessary links of communi- 
‘cation between heaven and earth. And lastly, its speculative 
opinions involve the same ethical conclusions, and lead in 
like manner to a rigid asceticism. If the notices relating to 
these points do not always explain themselves, yet read in 
the light of the heresies of the Apostolic age and in that of 
subsequent Judzo-Gnostic Christianity, their bearing seems to 
be distinct enough ; so that we should not be far wrong, if we 
were to designate Essenism as Gnostic Judaism’. 


But the Essenes of whom historical notices are preserved How 


were inhabitants of the Holy Land. Their monasteries were ‘eae 


situated on the shores of the Dead Sea. We are told indeed, Essenes 
* dispersed? 


that the sect was not confined to any one place, and that 


1 I have said nothing of the Kab- 
bala, as a development of Jewish 
thought illustrating the Colossian he- 
resy: because the books containing 
the Kabbalistic speculations are com- 
paratively recent, and if they contain 
ancient elements, it seems impossible 


to separate these from later additions 
or to assign to them even an approxi- 
mate date. The Kabbalistic doctrine 
however will serve to show to what 
extent Judaism may be developed in 
the direction of speculative mystic- 
ism. 


94 


Do they 
appear in 
Asia 
Minor? 


How the 
term Es- 
sene is to 
be under- 
stood. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


members of the order were found in great numbers in divers 
cities and villages’. But Judza in one notice, Palestine and Syria 
in another, are especially named as the localities of the Essene 
settlements*, Have we any reason to suppose that they were 
represented among the Jews of the Dispersion? In Egypt 
indeed we find ourselves confronted with a similar ascetic 
sect, the Therapeutes, who may perhaps have had an inde- 
pendent origin, but who nevertheless exhibit substantially the 
same type of Jewish thought and practice*. But the Disper- 
sion of Egypt, it may be argued, was exceptional ; and we might 
expect to find here organisations and developments of Judaism 
hardly less marked and various than in the mother country. 
What ground have we for assuming the existence of this type 
Do we meet with any traces of it in the cities 
of the Lycus, or in proconsular Asia generally, which would 
justify the opinion that it might make its influence felt in the 
Christian communities of that district ? 

Now it has been shown that the colonies of the Jews in 
this neighbourhood were populous and influential*; and it 
might be argued with great probability that among these 
large numbers Essene Judaism could not be unrepresented. 


in Asia Minor 2? 


But indeed throughout this investigation, when I speak of 
the Judaism in the Colossian Church as Essene, I do not 
assume a precise identity of origin, but only an essential 


1 Philo Fragm. p. 632 olkoto. dé 
qoAnas pev modes THS "lovdalas, moddas 
dé kwuas, kal peyadous kal modvavOpw- 
mous ouldous; Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 4 ula 
dé ovk 2orw adray mons, aAN év exdory 
Karotkodot modo. On the notices of 
the settlements and dispersion of the 
Essenes see Zeller p. 239. 

2 Philo names Judea in Fragm. p. 
632; Palestine and Syria in Quod omn. 
prob. lib. 12, p. 457. Their chief set- 
tlements were in the neighbourhood 
of the Dead Sea. This fact is men- 
tioned by the heathen writers Pliny 
(N. H. v. 15) and Dion Chrysostom 
(Synesius Dio 3). The name of the 


‘Essene gate’ at Jerusalem (B. J. v. 
4. 2) seems to point to some establish- 
ment of the order close to the walls of 
that city. 

3 They are only known to us from 
Philo’s treatise de Vita Contemplativa. 
Their settlements were on the shores 
cf the Mareotic lake near Alexandria. 
Unlike the Essenes, they were not 
gathered together in convents as mem- 
bers of a fraternity, but lived apart as 
anchorites, though in the same neigh- 
bourhood. In other respects their 
tenets and practices were very similar 
to those of the Essenes. 

4 See above p. 19 sq. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 95 


affinity of type, with the Essenes of the mother country. As 

a matter of history, it may or may not have sprung from the 

colonies on the shores of the Dead Sea; but as this can neither 

be proved nor disproved, so also it is immaterial to my main 

purpose. All along its frontier, wherever Judaism became Probabili- 
. nae ties of the 

enamoured of and was wedded to Oriental mysticism, the case. 

same union would produce substantially the same results. 

In a country where Phrygia, Persia, Syria, all in turn had 

moulded religious thought, it would be strange indeed if 

Judaism entirely escaped these influences. Nor, as a matter of 

fact, are indications wanting to show that it was not unaffected 

by them. If the traces are few, they are at least as numerous Direct 

and as clear as with our defective information on the whoie lhe 

subject we have any right to expect in this particular instance. 

When St Paul visits Ephesus, he comes in contact with St Paul at 
certain strolling Jews, exorcists, who attempt to cast out evil ee 
spirits’. Connecting this fact with the notices of Josephus, from 57: 
which we infer that exorcisms of this kind were especially Exorcisms 
practised by the Essenes*, we seem to have an indication of 
their presence in the capital of proconsular Asia. If so, it is 
a significant fact that in their exorcisms they employed the 
name of our Lord: for then we must regard this as the earliest 
notice of those overtures of alliance on the part of Essenism, 
which involved such important consequences in the subse- 
quent history of the Church*. It is also worth observing, 
that the next incident in St Luke’s narrative is the burn- 
ing of their magical books by those whom St Paul converted wn bi 
on this occasion*. As Jews are especially mentioned among 
these converts, and as books of charms are ascribed to the 
Essenes by Josephus, the two incidents, standing in this close 


1 Acts xix. 13 Tay mepepyoudvwy in this passage: see Wetstein ad loc., 
"Tovdalwy efopxiarar. and the references in Becker and Mar- 
2 See above p. gr, note 2. quardt Rom. Alterth. Iv. p. 123 8q. 
3 On the latter contact of Essenism But this supposition does not exclude 
with Christianity, see the third disser- the Jews from a share in these magical 
tation, and Galatians p. 322 sq. arts, while the context points to some 
4 There is doubtless a reference to such participation. 
the charms called "Edésia ypduuara 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


connexion, throw great light on the type of Judaism which 
thus appears at Ephesus’. 

Somewhat later we have another notice which bears in 
the same direction. The Sibylline Oracle, which forms the 
fourth book in the existing collection, is discovered by internal 
evidence to have been written about A.D. 80%. It is plainly 
a product of Judaism, but its Judaism does not belong to 
the normal Pharisaic type. With Essenism it rejects sacri- 
fices, even regarding the shedding of blood as a pollution’, 
and with Essenism also it inculcates the duty of frequent 
washings*, Yet from other indications we are led to the con- 
clusion, that this poem was not written in the interests of 
Essenism properly so called, but represents some allied though 


1 Tcanonly regard it as an accidental 
coincidence that the epulones of the 
Ephesian Artemis were called Essenes, 
Pausan. viii. 13. 1° Tovs 7TH "Apréucd 
ioridropas TH Edeola yvouévous, kadov- 
pévous 6é v1rd Tay mokitay Eoojvas: see 
Guhl Ephesiaca 1o6 sq. The Etymol. 
Magn. has ’Eoonv: 6 Bacide’s Kara. ’Ede- 
otovs, and adds several absurd deriva- 
tions of the word. In the sense of ‘a 
king’ it is used by Callimachus Hymn. 
Jov. 66 ob oe Gedy éconva madw Gécav. It 
is probably not a Greek word, as other 
terms connected with the worship of 
the Ephesian Artemis (e.g. ueyaBufos, 
a Persian word) point to an oriental 
or at least a non-Greek origin; and 
some have derived it from the Ara- 
maic }*DNM chasin ‘strong’ or ‘ power- 
ful.’ But there is no sufficient ground 
for connecting it directly with the 
name of the sect ’Eooyvol or ’"Eocato, 
as some writers are disposed to do 
(e.g. Spanheim on Callim. 1. ¢., Creuzer 
Symbolik tv. pp. 347, 349); though 
this view is favoured by the fact that 
certain ascetic practices were enjoined 
on these pagan ‘Essenes.’ 

2 Its date is fixed by the following 
allusions. The temple at Jerusalem 


has been destroyed by Titus (vv. 122 
sq.), and the cities of Campania have 
been overwhelmed in fire and ashes 
(vv. 127 8q.). Nero has disappeared 
and his disappearance has been fol- 
lowed by bloody contests in Rome (vv. 
116 sq.); but his return is still ex- 
pected (vv. 134 8q.). 

3 See vv. 27—30 of vnods wey dravras 
amoorpépovow lddvres, kal Bwpods, elkaia 
ALOav liptuara Kwouv aipacw éupixwv 
Mepiao neva kal O@voinot rerpardbdwv K.T.r. 
In an earlier passage vv. 8 sq. it is 
said of God, ore yap olkoy éxer vam 
Nldov lpvOévra Kwpdrarov vwddy Te, 
Bporay trodvahyéa AWByv. 

4 ver. 160 év morapots Novcacbe Bhov 
déuas devdoiot. Another point of con- 
tact with the Essenes is the great 
stress on prayers before meals, ver. 26 
evdNoyéovres mply migew payéev re. HKwald 
(Sibyll. Biicher p. 46) points also to 
the prominence of the words evceBeiv, 
evoeBys, evoeBla (vv. 26, 35, 42, 455 
133, 148, 151, 162, 165, 181, 183) to 
designate the elect of God, as tending 
in the same direction. The force: of 
thislatter argument will depend mainly 
on the derivation which is given to the 
name Essene. See below, p. 349 84.. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


independent development of Judaism. In some respects at 
all events its language seems quite inconsistent with the purer 
type of Essenism’, But its general tendency is clear: and 
of its locality there can hardly be a doubt. The affairs of 
Asia Minor occupy a dispropertionate space in the poet's de- 
scription of the past and vision of the future. The cities of 
the Meander and its neighbourhood, among these Laodicea, 
are mentioned with emphasis”. 


97 


And certainly the moral and intellectual atmosphere would Phrygia 


not be unfavourable to the growth of such a plant. The same 


and Asia 
congenial 


district, which in speculative philosophy had produced a Thales Hille 


and a Heraclitus®, had developed in popular religion the wor- religion. 


ship of the Phrygian Cybele and Sabazius and of the Ephe- 
sian Artemis‘. Cosmological speculation, mystic theosophy, 
religious fanaticism, all had their home here. -Associated with 
Judaism or with Christianity the natural temperament and the 
intellectual bias of the people would take a new direction ; 


1 Thus for instance, Ewaid (1. ¢., p. 
47) points to the tacit approval of mar- 
riage in ver. 33. Ihardly think however 
that this passage, which merely ton- 
demns adultery, can be taken to imply 
so much. More irreconcilable with pure 
Essenism is the belief in the resur- 
rection of the body and the future life 
on earth, which is maintained in vv. 
176 sq.; though Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. 
xIv. p. 49) does not recognise the diffi- 
culty. See above p. 88. This Sibyl- 
line writer was perhaps rather a He- 
merobaptist than an Essene, On the 
relation of the Hemerobaptists and 
Essenes seo the third dissertation. 
Alexandre, Orac. Sibyll. (11. p. 323), 
says of this Sibylline Oracle, ‘Ipse 
liber haud dubie Christianus est,’ but 
there is nothing distinctly Christian 
in its teaching. 

2 vv. 106 8q., 145 Sq.; See above p. 40, 
note 2. It begins cri Aews ’Acins pe- 
yarauyéos Evpwrys re, 

3 The exceptional activity of the 


coL. 


forces of nature in these districts of 
Asia Minor may have directed the 
speculations of the Ionic school towards 
physics, and more especially towards 
cosmogony. In Heraclitus there is 
also a strong mystical element. But 
besides such broader affinities, I ven- 
ture to call attention to special dicta of 
the two philosophers mentioned in the 
text, which curiously recall the tenets 
of the Judwo-Gnostic teachers. Thales 
declared (Diog. Laert. i. 27) rdv xdopov 
éuuxov Kat Gatudrvwv mrijpy, Or, as re- 
ported by Aristotle (de An. i. 5, p. 411), 
mdvra wAHpn Gedy elvar. Ina recorded 
saying of Heraclitus we have the very 
language of a Gnostic teacher; Clem. 
Alex. Strom. v. 13, p. 699, Ta ev Tis 
yvactos Bd0n KplUmrrew dmorin 
ayab}, xa? “HpdkXerrovs dmeorin yap 
diaguyydvee 7d ph ywoonerPa. Seo 
above pp. 77, 92. 

4 For the characteristic features of 
Phrygian religious worship see Steiger 
Kolosser p.-70 sq. 


7 


98 


Previous 
results 
summed 


up. 


Is the 
Colossian 
heresy 
Gnostic? 


Three 
notes of 
Gnosti- 
cism. 


t. Intel- 
lectual 
exclusive- 
ness. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


but the old type would not be altogether obliterated. Phrygia 
She was the 
mother of Montanist enthusiasm’, and the foster-mother of 
Novatian rigorism®. The syncretist, the mystic, the devotee, 
the puritan, would find a congenial climate in these regions 
of Asia Minor. 


reared the hybrid monstrosities of Ophitism’. 


It has thus been shown first, that Essene Judaism was 
Gnostic in its character; and secondly, that this type of Jewish 
thought and practice had established itself in the Apostolic age 
in those parts of Asia Minor with which we are more directly 
concerned. It now remains to examine the heresy of the 
Colossian Church more nearly, and to see whether it deserves 
the name, which provisionally was given to it, of Gnostic 
Judaism. Its Judaism all will allow. Its claim to be regarded 
as Gnostic will require a closer scrutiny. And in conducting 
this examination, it will be convenient to take the three notes 
of Gnosticism which have been already laid down, and to enquire 


how far it satisfies these tests. 


1. It has been pointed out that Gnosticism strove to esta- 
blish, or rather to preserve, an intellectual oligarchy in religion. 
It had its hidden wisdom, its exclusive mysteries, its privileged 


class. 


Now I think it will be evident, that St Paul in this epistle 


1 The prominence, which the Phry- 
gian mysteries and Phrygian rites held 
in the syncretism of the Ophites, is 
clear from the account of Hippolytus 
Her.v.78q. Indeed Phrygia appears 
to have been the proper home of Ophi- 
tism. Yet the admixture of Judaic 
elements is not less obvious, as the 
name Naassene, derived from the He- 
brew word for a serpent, shows. 

2 The name, by which the Mon- 
tanists were commonly known in the 
early ages, was the sect of the ‘Phry- 
gians’; Clem. Strom. vii. 17, p. goo al 
5é [ra&v aipécewr] ard Ovous [mpocayo- 
pevovra], ws ) Tav Ppvyav (comp. Eus. 


H, EB. iv. 27, v. 16, Hipp. Her. viii. 
19, X. 25). From of (or 7) kata Ppvyas 
(Eus. H. H. il, 25, v. 16, 18, Vi. 20) 
comes the solecistic Latin name Cata- 
phryges. 

3 Socrates (iv. 28) accounts for the 
spread of Novatianism in Phrygia by 
the cwdpoctryn of the Phrygian temper. 
If so, it is a striking testimony to the 
power of Christianity, that under its 
influence the religious enthusiasm of 
the Phrygians should have taken this 
direction, and that they should have 
exchanged the fanatical orgiasm of 
their heathen worship for the rigid 
puritanism of the Novatianist. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 99 


feels himself challenged to contend for the universality of the st Paul 
Gospel. This indeed is a characteristic feature of the Apostle’s so. ye 
teaching at all times, and holds an equally prominent place in rt a 
the epistles of an earlier date. But the point to be observed is, Gospel, 
that the Apostle, in maintaining this doctrine, has changed the 
mode of his defence; and this fact suggests that there has been 
a change i in the cats of the attack. It is no longer against 
national exclusiveness, but against intellectual exclusiveness, 
that he contends. His adversaries do not now plead ceremonial 
restrictions, or at least do not plead these alone: but they erect 
an artificial barrier of spiritual privilege, even more fatal to 
the universal claims of the Gospel, because more specious and 
more insidious. It is not now against the Jew as such, but 
against the Jew become Gnostic, that he fights the battle of 
liberty. In other words; it is not against Christian Pharisaism 
but against Christian Essenism that he defends his position. 
Only in the light of such am antagonism can we understand the 
emphatic iteration with which he claims to ‘warn every man 
and teach every man in every wusdem that he may present 
every man perfect in Christ Jesus’’ It will be remembered against 
that ‘wisdom’ in Gnostic teaching was the exclusive possession of iat ee és 
the few; it will not be forgotten that ‘perfection’ was the term ®” hae 
especially applied in their language to this privileged minority, intellect, 
as contradistinguished from the common herd of believers; 

and thus it will be readily understood why St Paul should go 

on to say that this universality of the Gospel is the one object 

of his contention, to which all the energies of his life are 
directed, and having done so, should express his intense anxiety 

for the Churches of Colossee and the neighbourhood, lest they 

should be led astray by a spurious wisdom to desert the true 


knowledge*. This danger also will enable us to appreciate a 


1 i. 28 vovBeroivres wdvra dvOpwrov 
kal SiddoKxovres mdvra dvOpwrov év 
rhon copia va mapacriowmey rdvra 
dvOpwrov TéXecov ev Xpior@x.T.rA. The 
reiteration has offended the scribes; 
and the first rdéyra dv@pwiov is omitted 


in some copies, the second in others. 
For 7é\eov see the note on the passage. 

2 The connexion of the sentences 
should be carefully observed. After 
the passage quoted in the last note 
comes the asseveration that this is 


i 


100 


He con- 
trasts the 
true wis- 
dom with 
the false, 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


novel feature in another passage of the epistle. While dwelling 
on the obliteration of all distinctions in Christ, he repeats his 
earlier contrasts, ‘Greek and Jew,’ ‘circumcision and uncircum- 
cision, ‘bondslave and free’; but to these he adds new words 
which at once give a wider scope and a more immediate appli- 
cation to the lesson. In Christ the existence of ‘ barbarian’ and 
even ‘Scythian,’ the lowest type of barbarian, is extinguished’. 
As culture, civilisation, philosophy, knowledge, are no conditions 
of acceptance, so neither is their absence any disqualification in 
the believer. The aristocracy of intellectual discernment, which 
Gnosticism upheld in religion, is abhorrent to the first principles 
of the Gospel. 

Hence also must be explained the frequent occurrence of 
the words ‘ wisdom’ (co¢/a), ‘intelligence’ (cvvecis), ‘knowledge’ 
(yvuaors), ‘perfect knowledge’ (éxiyvwais), in this epistle*. St 


) Paul takes up the language of his opponents, and translates it 


into a higher sphere, The false teachers put forward a ‘ philo- 
sophy, but it was only an empty deceit, only a plausible display 
of false reasoning*. They pretended ‘wisdom, but it was 
merely the profession, not the reality*. Against these pretentions 
the Apostle sets the true wisdom of the Gospel. On its wealth, 
its fulness, its perfection, he is never tired of dwelling’ The 
true wisdom, he would argue, is essentially spiritual and yet 
essentially definite ; while the false is argumentative, is specu- 


Zx’bns. There is nothing correspond- 
ing to this in the parallel passage, 
Gal. iii. 28. 


the one object of the Apostle’s preach- 
ing (i. 29) els 6 Kal Komi@ x.7.0.; then 
the expression of concern on behalf 


of the Colossians (ii. 1) @é\w yap tuas 
eldévac HAlkov dywva exw vrép dudv 
x.T.d.; then the desire that they may 
be brought (ii. 2) els wav adoiros ris 
wAnpopoplas Ths cuvécews, els érl- 
yvwotv Tov pvornplov Tov Ocov; then 
the definition of this mystery (ii. 2, 3), 
Xpicrov év @ elolvy mavres ol Onoavpol 
k.7.4.; then the warning against the 
false teachers (ii. 4) rodro déyw Wa 
finoels Uuds mapadoylinrat K.T.r. 

1 Col. iii, rx after mepirouh kal 
axpoBvorta the Apostle adds Bap8apos, 


2 For cogla see i. 9, 28, ii. 3, iii. 16, 
iv. 5; for ctveos i. 9, ii. 23 for yraous 
li. 3; for émlyvwous i. 9, 10, ii, 2, 
iii, 10. 

3 ii, 4 mBavoroyla, ii. 8 Kev darn. 

4 ii, 23 Adbyor mwev e&xovra aodlas, 
where the nev suggests the contrast 
of the suppressed clause. 

5 e.g. i. 9, 28, ili, 16 & mraop 
cogla; ii. 2 rs wAnpodoplas. For the 
‘wealth’ of this knowledge compare 
i. 27, ii. 2, iii, 16; and see above 
P. 44: 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. IOI 


lative, is vague and dreamy’. Again they had their rites of 
initiation. St Paul contrasts with these the one universal, com- end iene 
prehensive mystery’, the knowledge of God in Christ. This chine: 
mystery is complete in itself: it contains ‘all the treasures of "7 
wisdom and of knowledge hidden’ in it*, Moreover it is offered 
to all without distinction: thoygh once hidden, its revelation is 
unrestricted, except by the waywardness and disobedience of 
men. The esoteric spirit of Gnosticism finds no countenance in 
the Apostle’s teaching. 

2. From the informing spirit of Gnosticism we turn to the 2. Specu- 


: ti 
speculative tenets—the cosmogony and the theology of the rea 
Gnostic. muah 


And here too the affinities to Gnosticism reveal themselves theology. 
in the Colossian heresy. We cannot fail to observe that the 
Apostle has in view the doctrine of intermediate agencies, re- St Paul 
garded as instruments in the ereation and government of the pee 
world. Though this tenet is not distinctly mentioned, it is ca a 
tacitly assumed in the teaching which St Paul opposes to it. 
Against the philosophy of successive evolutions from the Divine 
nature, angelic mediators forming the successive links in the 
chain which binds the finite to the Infinite, he sets the doctrine 
of the one Eternal Son, the Word of God begotten before the setting 
worlds*, The angelology of the heretics had a twofold bearing ; $e"4°"* 
it was intimately connected at once with cosmogony and with trineof the 
religion. Correspondingly St Paul represents the mediatorial carnate, 
function of Christ as twofold: it is exercised in the natural 
creation, and it is exercised in the spiritual creation. In both 
these spheres His initiative is absolute, His control is universal, 
His action is complete. By His agency the world of matter was 


created and is sustained. He is at once the beginning and the 


ie Ba 2 sages are i. 15—20, li. g—15. They 

? i. 26, 27, ii. 2, iv. 3. will be found to justify the statements 

3 ii. 2 év § eloly mdvres of Oncavpot in this and the following paragraphs 
Ths coplas kal Tis yrwoews amdbxpvpo. of the text. For the meaning of in- 
For the meaning of dréxpugo see above dividual expressions see the notes on 
p- 90, and the note on the passage. the passages. 

4 The two great Christological pas- 


as the re- 
conciler 0 
heaven 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


end of the material universe; ‘All things have been created 
through Him and unto Him.’ Nor is His office in the spiritual 
world less complete. In the Church, as in the Universe, He is 
; sole, absolute, supreme ; the primary source from which all life 


and earth. proceeds and the ultimate arbiter in whom all feuds are reconciled. 


ae a On the one hand, in relation to Deity, He is the visible 
(1) Deity; Image of the invisible God. He is not only the chief manifes- 
aoe tation of the Divine nature: He exhausts the Godhead mani- 
fested.  fested. In Him resides the totality of the Divine powers and 

attributes, For this totality Gnostic teachers had a technical 
The plero- term, the pleroma or plenitude’. From the pleroma they sup- 
ae cenieee posed that all those agencies issued, through which God has at 


any time exerted His power in creation, or manifested His will 
through revelation. These mediatorial beings would retain more 
or less of its influence, according as they claimed direct parentage 
from it or traced their descent through successive evolutions. 
But in all cases this pleroma was distributed, diluted, transformed 
and darkened by foreign admixture. They were only partial and 
blurred images, often deceptive caricatures, of their original, 
broken lights of the great central Light. It is not improbable 
that, like later speculators of the same school, they found a place 
somewhere or other in their genealogy of spiritual beings for 
the Christ. If so, St Paul’s language becomes doubly signifi- 
cant. But this hypothesis is not needed to explain its reference. 
In contrast to their doctrine, he asserts and repeats the asser- 
tion, that the pleroma abides absolutely and wholly in Christ 
as the Word of God*% The entire light is concentrated in 
Him. 


(2) Created | Hence it follows that, as regards created things, His supre- 


things; a 
absolute 
Lord. 


* macy must be absolute. In heaven as in-earth, over things 


immaterial as over things material, He is king. Speculations on 
the nature of intermediate spiritual agencies—their names, their 
ranks, their offices—were rife in the schools of Judzo-Gnostic 


1 See the detached note on mA7j- mAnpwua KaroKjoa, ii. g év abr@ xa- 
pwc. TOKE Tay TO TARPwWUA THS OedTHTOS Tw- 
2 i. 19 & altg evddknoey wav TO MATLKOS. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


thought. ‘Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers’— 
these formed part of the spiritual nomenclature which they had 
invented to describe different grades of angelic mediators. 
Without entering into these speculations, the Apostle asserts 
that Christ is Lord of all, the highest and the lowest, what- 
ever rank they may hold and by whatever name they are 
called’, for they are parts of creation and He is the source of 
creation. Through Him they became, and unto Him they 
tend. 


103 


Hence the worship of angels, which the false teachers incul- Angelola- 


cated, was utterly wrong in principle. The motive of this 


therefore 


angelolatry itis not difficult to imagine. There was a show of See 


humility’, for there was a confession of weakness, in this sub- 
servience to inferior mediatorial agencies. It was held feasible 
to grasp at the lower links of the chain which bound earth 
to heaven, when heaven itself seemed far beyond the reach 
of man. The successive grades of intermediate beings were 
as successive steps, by which man might mount the ladder 
leading up to the throne of God. This carefully woven web 
of sophistry the Apostle tears to shreds. The doctrine of the 
false teachers was based on confident assumptions respecting 
angelic beings of whom they could know nothing. It was 
moreover a denial of Christ’s twofold personality and His 


mediatorial office. It follows from the true conception of as a denial 


Christ’s Person, that He and He alone can bridge over the SS 
chasm between earth and heaven; for He is at once the lowest #- 


and the highest. He raises up man to God, for He brings down 
God to man. Thus the chain is reduced to a single link, 
this link being the Word made flesh. As the pleroma resides 
in Him, so is it communicated to us through Him*® To sub- 
stitute allegiance to any other spiritual mediator is to sever 


1 See especially i. 16 etre Opdvoe Compare also ii. 10 % xegady mdons 
elre kupiérynres etre apxal etre éfovolac  dpxis Kal éfovalas, and ii. 15 dmrexdvcd- 
k.T.A., compared with the parallel pas- _evos rds dpyds kal Tas éfouclas K.7.d. 
sage in Eph. i. 21 vrepayw rdons dpxijs 2 ii, 18 Oéd\wy év rarevodpoctvy kal 
kal é£ovgias Kal duvduews kal kupidryros Opyoxelg Ta aryyédwy K.T. X. 
kai mwavrTos dvomaros dvomagouévou K.T.d. 3 ji. 10; comp. i. 9. 


of His per- 
ct media- 


104 


The Apo- 
stle’s prac- 
tical infer- 
ence. 


3. Moral 
results of 
Gnostic 
doctrine. 


Asceticism 
of the Co- 
lossian 
heresy 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


the connexion of the limbs with the Head, which is the centre 
of life and the mainspring of all energy throughout the body’. 

Hence follows the practical conclusion, that, whatever. is 
done, must be done in the name of the Lord*. Wives must 
submit to their husbands ‘in the Lord’: children must obey 
their parents ‘in the Lord’: servants must work for their mas- 
ters as working ‘unto the Lord*®’ This iteration, ‘in the Lord,’ 
‘unto the Lord,’ is not an irrelevant form of words; but arises 
as an immediate inference from the main idea which under- 
lies the doctrinal portion of the epistle. 

3. It has been shown that the speculative tenets of Gnos- 
ticism might lead (and as a matter of fact we know that 
they did lead) to either of two practical extremes, to rigid 
asceticism or to unbridled license. The latter alternative ap- 
pears to some extent in the heresy of the Pastoral Epistles‘ 
and still more plainly in those of the Catholic Epistles’ and 
the Apocalypse’. It is constantly urged by Catholic writers as 
a reproach against later Gnostic sects’. 

But the former and nobler extreme was the first impulse 
of the Gnostic. To escape from the infection of evil by escap- 
ing from the domination of matter was his chief anxiety. This 
appears very plainly in the Colossian heresy. Though the pro- 
hibitions to which the Apostle alludes might be explained in 
part by the ordinances of the Mosaic ritual, this explanation 
will not cover all the facts. Thus for instance drinks are 
mentioned as well as meats*, though on the former the law 
of Moses is silent. Thus again the rigorous denunciation, ‘Touch 
not, taste not, handle not®? seems to go very far beyond the 
Levitical enactments. And moreover the motive of these-pro- 


aL 18. iv. 2 the ascetic tendency still pre- 
2 iii, 17. dominates. 
3 iii. 18, 20, 23. 5 2 Pet. ii. ro sq., Jude 8. 
4 At least in 2 Tim. iii. r—7, where, 6 Apoc. ii. 14, 20—22. 
though the most monstrous develop- 7 See the notes on Clem. Rom. Ep. 


ments of the evil were still future, ii. § 9. 
the Apostle’s language implies that it 8 ii, 16. 
had already begun. On the other hand 9 ii, 21. 
in the picture of the heresy in 1 Tim. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY, 105 


hibitions is Essene rather than Pharisaic, Gnostic rather than not ex- 
Jewish. These severities of discipline were intended ‘to check eae a 
indulgence of the flesh’? They professed to treat the body #*™- 
with entire disregard, to ignore its cravings and to deny its 

wants. In short they betray a strong ascetic tendency’, of 

which normal Judaism, as represented by the Pharisee, offers 

no explanation. 

And St Paul’s answer points to the same inference. The St Paul’s 

difierence will appear more plainly, if we compare it with his ee re 
treatment of Pharisaic Judaism in the Galatian Church. This a 
epistle offers nothing at all corresponding to his language on 
that occasion; ‘If righteousness be by law, then Christ died 
in vain’; ‘If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you no- 
thing’; ‘Christ is nullified for you, whosoever are justified by 
law ; yeare fallen from grace*.’ The point of view in fact is 
wholly changed. With these Hssene or Gnostic Judaizers the 
Mosaic law was neither the motive nor the standard, it was only 
the starting point, of their austerities. Hence in replying the 
Apostle no longer deals with law, as law; he no longer points It is no 
the contrast of grace and works; but he enters upon the moral ‘sepodleae 
aspects of these ascetic practices. He denounces them, as con- pe 
centrating the thoughts on earthly and perishable things’. 
He points out that they fail in their purpose, and are found 
valueless against carnal indulgences®. In their place he offers 
the true and only remedy against sin—the elevation of the 
inner life in Christ, the transference of the affections into a 
higher sphere*®, where the temptations of the flesh are powerless. 
Thus dying with Christ, they will kill al/ their earthly mem- 
bers’, Thus rising with Christ, they will be renewed in the 
image of God their Creator*. 


Se Ee 

2 Asceticism is of two kinds. There 
is the asceticism of dualism (whether 
conscious or unconscious), which springs 
from a false principle;. and there is the 
asceticism of self-discipline, which is 
the training of the Christian athlete 
(1 Cor. iz. 27). I need not say that the 


remarks in the text apply only to the 
former. 

SGal- illo, Va) cas 

4 ii. 8, 2o—22. 

5 ii, 23 od« év Tyug Twl mpds ANT HO- 
viv Ths oapkés: see the note on these 
words. cant Oe ae 

FM Ss 5s 8 ili. 10, 


106 THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


The toth In attempting to draw a complete portrait of the Colossian 
oe re. heresy from a few features accidentally exhibited in St Paul’s 


aa tested epistle, it has been necessary to supply certain links; and 
some assurance may not unreasonably be required that this 
has not been done arbitrarily. Nor is this security wanting. 
In all such cases the test will be twofold. The result must 
be consistent with itself: and it must do no violence to the 
historical conditions under which the phenomena arose. 
(1) Its in- 1. In the present instance the former of these tests is fully 
ee satisfied. The consistency and the symmetry of the result is 
eyand its great recommendation. The postulate of a Gnostic type 
anti brings the separate parts of the representation into direct con- 
nexion. ‘The speculative opinions and the practical tenden- 
cies of the heresy thus explain, and are explained by, each 
other. It is analogous to the hypothesis of the comparative 
anatomist, who by referring the fossil remains to their proper 
type restores the whole skeleton of some unknown animal from 
a few bones belonging to different extremities of the body, and 
without the intermediate and connecting parts. In the one case, 
as in the other, the result is the justification of the postulate. 
(2) Its 2. And again; the historical conditions of the problem 
piace ™ * are carefully observed. It has been shown already, that Ju- 
sequence. daism in the preceding age had in one of its developments 
assumed a form which was the natural precursor of the Colos- 
sian heresy. In order to complete the argument it will be 
necessary to show that Christianity in the generation next suc- 
ceeding exhibited a perverted type, which was its natural out- 
growth. If this can be done, the Colossian heresy will take 


its proper place in a regular historical sequence. 


Continu- I have already pointed out that the language of St John 


ee in the Apocalypse, which was probably written within a few 


Urea years of this epistle, seems to imply the continuance in this 
cismin the district of the same type of heresy which is here denounced 


cata by St Paul’. But the notices in this book are not more de- 


1 See above p. 41 sq. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


finite than those of the Epistle to the Colossians itself; and 
we are led to look outside the Canonical writings for some 
more explicit evidence. Has early Christian history then pre- 
served any record of a distinctly Gnostic school existing on the 
confines of the Apostolic age, which may be considered a legiti- 
mate development of the phase of religious speculation that 


confronts us here 2 


107 


We find exactly the phenomenon which we are seeking in Heresy of 


the heresy of Cerinthus*. The time, the place, the circum- 


stances, all agree. This heresiarch is said to have been origin- 


Cerinthus. 


ally a native of Alexandria’; but proconsular Asia is allowed His date 


on all hands to have been the scene of his activity as a 
teacher*. He lived and taught at the close of the Apostolic 
age, that_is, in the latest decade of the first century. Some 
writers indeed make him an antagonist of St Peter and St 
Paul’, but their authority is not trustworthy, nor is this very 
early date at all probable. But there can be no reasonable 
doubt that he was a contemporary of St John, who was related 
by Polycarp to have denounced him face to face on one me- 
morable occasion’, and is moreover said by Ireneus to have 
written his Gospel with the direct object of confuting his errors®. 


1 The relation of Cerinthus to the 
Colossian heresy is briefly indicated 
by Neander Planting of Christianity 
I. p. 325 sq. (Eng. Trans.). It has 
been remarked by other writers also, 
both earlier and later. The subject 
appears to me to deserve a fuller 
investigation than it has yet re- 
ceived, 

2 Hippol. Her. vii. 33 Alyurrlwy 
madela aoxnbeis, X. 21 6 &v Alytrrw 
dcxnbels, Theodoret. Her. Fab. ii. 3 év 
Alyirrw mrelotov diarplyas xpdbvov. 

3 Tren. i. 26. 1 ‘et Cerinthus autem 
quidam...in Asia docuit,’ Epiphan. 
Her, xxviii. 1 éyévero 5€ otros 6 K7- 
pwOos év tH Acla SiarpiBwr, Kdxetoe 
To KnpUymaros Thy apxiv memoinuevos, 
Theodoret. 1. c. torepov els thy ’Aciav 
aglxero. The scene of his encounter 


with St John in the bath is placed at 
Ephesus: see below, note 5. 

4 Epiphanius (xxviii. 2 sq.) repre- 
sents him as the ringleader of the 
Judaizing opponents of the Apostles 
in the Acts and Epistles to the Co- 
rinthians and Galatians. Philastrius 
(Her. 36) takes the same line. 

5 The well-known story of the en- 
counter between St John and Cerinthus 
in the bath is related by Ireneus 
(iii. 3. 4) on the authority of Polycarp, 
who appears from the sequence of 
Ireneus’ narrative to have told it at 
Rome, when he paid his visit to Ani- 
cetus ; 6s kal él “Avixjrov émidnunoas 
TH Pw&un woddods amo TSv mpoeipnudvwv 
aiperixav éméorpewev...xal eloiv of axn- 
Koéres avrod Ore "Iwavyns k.T.X. 

6 Tren, ili. rz. 1. 


and place. 


108 


Cerinthus 
@ link be- 
tween Ju- 
daism and 
Gnosti- 
cism. 


Judaism 
still pro- 
minent in 
his system 


though 
Gnosti- 
cism is 
already 
aggressive. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


‘Cerinthus,’ writes Neander, ‘is best entitled to be con- 
sidered as the intermediate link between the Judaizing and 
the Gnostic seets.’ ‘ Hven among the ancients,’ he adds, ‘ opposite 
reports respecting his doctrines have been given from opposite 
points of view, according as the Gnostic or the Judaizing element 
was exclusively insisted upon: and the dispute on this point 
has been kept up even to modern times. In point of chro- 
nology too Cerinthus may be regarded as representing the prin- 
ciple in its transition from Judaism to Guosticism’.’ 

Of his Judaism no doubt has been or can be entertained. 
The gross Chiliastic doctrine ascribed to him’, even though 
it may have been exaggerated in the representations of ad- 
verse writers, can only be explained by a Jewish origin. His 
conception of the Person of Christ was Ebionite, that is Judaic, 
in its main features*. He is said moreover to have enforced 
the rite of circumcision and to have inculcated the observance 
of sabbaths*. It is related also that the Cerinthians, like the 
Ebionites, accepted the Gospel of St Matthew alone’. 

At the same time, it is said by an ancient writer that his 
adherence to Judaism was only partial’. This limitation is 
doubtless correct. As Gnostic principles asserted themselves 
more distinctly, pure Judaism necessarily suffered. All or nearly 
all the early Gnostic heresies were Judaic; and for a time a 
compromise was effected which involved more or less concession 
on either side. But the ultimate incompatibility of the two 
at length became evident, and a precarious alliance was ex- 
changed for an open antagonism. This final result however 
was not reached till the middle of the second century: and 
meanwhile it was a question to what. extent Judaism was pre- 


1 Church History u. p. 42 (Bohn’s statements of these writers would not 


Trans.). 

2 See the Dialogue of Gaius and 
Proclus in Euseb. H. E. iii. 28, Dio- 
nysius of Alexandria, ib. vil. 25, Theo- 
doret. 1, c., Augustin. Her. &. 

3 See below p. 111 

4 Epiphan. Her. xxviii. 4, 5, Phi- 
lastr. Her. 36, Augustin. l.c. The 


carry much weight in themselves; but 
in this instance they are rendered 
highly probable by the known Judaism 
of Cerinthus. 

5 Epiphan. Her. xxviii. 5, xxx. 14, 
Philastr. Her. 36. 

6 Epiphan. Her. xxviii. 1 mpooéxew 
TQ 'lovdaizug awo uédpous, 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


pared to make concessions for the sake of this new ally. Even 
the Jewish Essenes, as we have seen, departed from the ortho- 
dox position in the matter of sacrifices; and if we possessed 
fuller information, we should probably find that they made 
still larger concessions than this. Of the Colossian heretics 
we can only form a conjecture, but the angelology and an- 
gelolatry attributed to them point to a further step in the 
same direction. As we pass from them to Cerinthus we are 


109 


no longer left in doubt; for the Gnostic element has clearly Gnostic 


gained the ascendant, though it has not yet driven its rival 
out of the field. 
especially deserve consideration, both as evincing the tendency 
of his speculations and as throwing back light on the notices 
in the Colossian Epistle. 

1. His cosmogony is essentially Gnostic. 


element in 
his teach- 


Two characteristic features in his teaching 


The great pro- 1. His 


Gnostic 


blem of creation presented itself to him in the same aspect; Cosmo- 


and the solution which he offered was generically the same. ®°” 


‘The world, he asserted, was not made by the highest God, 
but by an angel or power far removed from, and ignorant of, 
this Supreme Being’. Other authorities describing his sys- 
tem speak ‘not of a single power, but of powers, as creating 
the universe”: but all alike represent this demiurge, or these 


1 Tren. i, 26. r ‘Non a primo Deo 
factum esse mundum docuit, sed a 
virtute quadam valde separata et dis- 
tante ab ea principalitate que est su- 
per universa, et ignorante eum qui est 
super omnia Deum’; Hippol. Her. vii. 
33 deyev ox brd ToD rpwrou Beob ye- 
vyovévat Tov Kbopov, GAN’ bd duvduews 
TWos Kexwpiouevys FHS drép Ta bra ééov- 
olas Kal dyvoovons Toy irép mdvra Océby, 
X. 21 Ure Suvdueds Twos ayyedxijs, 
mwonD Kexwpiouervys Kal Suecrwons Tis 
Umép Ta bra avdertlas Kal dryvoovons Tov 
Umép mavra Gedy. 

2 Pseudo-Tertull. Her. 3 *Carpocra- 
tes preterea hanc tulit sectam: Unam 
esse dicit virtutem in smperioribus 
principalem, ex nac prolatos angelos 


atque virtutes, quos distantes longe a 
superioribus virtutibus mundum istum 
in inferioribus partibus condidisse... 
Post hune Cerinthus hereticus erupit, 
similia docens, Nam et ipse mundum 
institutum esse ab illis dicit’; Epi- 
phan. Her. xxviii. 1 éva elvat tév dyyé- 
Aw trav Tov Kbopov weronkdtwv; Theo- 
doret. H. F. ii. 3 Ga pev elva rov roy 
Brwv Bear, otk abrov dé elvac Tod Koopov 
Snucoupyov, aGdAd Surdues Tivds Keyw- 
piomévas Kal: mayTEN@s avTov ayvoovcas ; 
Augustin. Her. 8. The one statement 
is quite reconcilable with the other. 
Among those angels by whose instru- 
mentality the world was created, Ce- 
rinthus appears to have assigned a 
position of preeminence to one, whom 


IIO THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


demiurges, as ignorant of the absolute God. It is moreover 
stated that he held the Mosaic law to have been given not 
by the supreme God Himself, but by this angel, or one of 
these angels, who created the world’. 
andconse- From these notices it is plain that angelology had an im- 
Je eeg portant place in his speculations; and that he employed it 
to explain the existence of evil supposed to be inherent in 
the physical world, as well as to account for the imperfections 
of the old dispensation. The ‘remote distance’ of his angelic 
demiurge from the supreme God can hardly be explained ex- 
cept on the hypothesis of successive generations of these inter- 
mediate agencies. Thus his solution is thoroughly Gnostic. 
At the same time, as contrasted with later and more sharply 
defined Gnostic systems, the Judaic origin and complexion of 
his cosmogony is obvious. His intermediate agencies still re- 
tain the name and the personality of angels, and have not 
yet given way to those vague idealities which, as emanations 
Angels of or eons, took their place in later speculations. Thus his theory 
Soe nd is linked on to the angelology of later Judaism founded on a 
es, the angelic appearances recorded in the Old Testament nar- 
rative. And again: while later Gnostics represent the demi- 
urge and giver of the law as antagonistic to the supreme and 
good God, Cerinthus does not go beyond postulating his igno- 
rance. He went as far as he could without breaking entirely 
with the Old Testament and abandoning his Judaic standing- 
ground. 
Cerinthus In these respects Cerinthus is the proper link between the 
tree oe incipient gnosis of the Colossian heretics and the mature 
ake agnosis of the second century. In the Colossian epistle we 
laterGnos- still breathe the atmosphere of Jewish angelology, nor is there 
ao any trace of the won of later Gnosticism*; while yet speculation 
is so far advanced that the angels have an important function 
he regarded as the demiurge in a Her. xxviii. 4 rov dedwxdra voor da 


special sense and under whom the  elva ruv ayyé\wy Toy TOY KdcpoV Te- 


others worked; see Neander Church monxérwr. 
History i. p. 43. 2 JT am quite unable to see any 


1 Pseudo-Tertull. 1. c.; Epiphan. reference to the Gnostic conception of 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


in explaining the mysteries of the creation and government 
of the world. On the other hand it has not reached the 
point at which we find it in Cerinthus. Gnostic conceptions | 
respecting the relation of the demiurgic agency to the supreme | 

God would appear to have passed through three stages. + This 
relation was represented first, as imperfect appreciation; next, 

as entire ignorance; lastly, as direct antagonism. The second 

and third are the standing points of Cerinthus and of the later 
Gnostic teachers respectively. The first was probably the 
position of the Colossian false teachers. The imperfections 

of the natural world, they would urge, were due to the limited 
capacities of these angels to whom the demiurgic work was 
committed, and to their imperfect sympathy with the Supreme 

God; but at the same time they might fitly receive worship 

as mediators between God and man; and indeed humanity 
seemed in its weakness to need the intervention of some such 
beings less remote from itself than the highest heaven. 

2. Again the Christology of Cerinthus deserves attention 2. His 
from this point of view. Here all our authorities are agreed. aes 
As a Judaizer Cerinthus held with the Ebionites that Jesus 
was only the son of Joseph and Mary, born in the natural way. 

As a Gnostic he maintained that the Christ first descended in 
the form of a dove on the carpenter’s son at his baptism; that 
He revealed to him the unknown Father, and worked miracles 
through him: and that at length He took His flight and left ’ 
him, so that Jesus alone suffered and rose, while the Christ 


remained impassible’. 


an @on in the passages of the New 
Testament, which aresometimes quoted 
in support of this view, e.g., by Baur 
Paulus p. 428, Burton Lectures p. 111 
Bq. 

1 Tren. i. 26. 1, Hippol. Her. vii. 
33, X. 21, Epiphan. Her. xxviii. 1, 
Theodoret. H. F. ii. 3. The argu- 
ments by which Lipsius (Gnosticismus 
pp. 245, 258, in Ersch u. Gruber; 
Quellenkritik des Epiphanios p. 118 


It would appear also, though this is 


sq.) attempts to show that Cerinthus 
did not separate the Christ from 
Jesus, and that Irenzus (and subse- 
quent authors copying him) have 
wrongly attributed to this heretic the 
theories of later Gnostics, seem insuf- 
ficient to outweigh these direct state- 
ments. It is more probable that the 
system of Cerinthus should have ad- 
mitted some foreign elements not very 
consistent with his Judaic standing 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 


not certain, that he described this re-ascension of the Christ as 
a return ‘to His own pleroma’.’ 

Now it is not clear from St Paul’s language what opinions 

the Colossian heretics held respecting the person of our Lord; 

ear entns but we may safely assume that he regarded them as inadequate 

Colossian and derogatory. The emphasis, with which he asserts the 

heresy. eternal being and absolute sovereignty of Christ, can hardly be 

explained in any other way. But individual expressions tempt 

us to conjecture that the same ideas were already floating in 

the air, which ultimately took form and consistency in the 

tenets of Cerinthus. Thus, when he reiterates the statement 

that the whole pleroma abides permanently in Christ’, he 

would appear to be tacitly refuting some opinion which main- 

tained only mutable and imperfect relations between the two. 

When again he speaks of the true gospel first taught to the 

Colossians as the doctrine of ‘the Christ, even Jesus the Lord*? 

his language might seem to be directed against the tendency 

to separate the heavenly Christ from the earthly Jesus, as 

though the connexion were only transient. When lastly he 

dwells on the work of reconciliation, as wrought ‘through the 

blood of Christ’s cross, ‘in the body of His flesh through 

death*? we may perhaps infer that he already discerned a 

disposition to put aside Christ’s passion as a stumbling-block 


Approach 
towards 
Cerinthian 


in the way of philosophical 


point, than that these writers should 
have been misinformed. Inconsistency 
was a@ necessary condition of Judaic 
Gnosticism, The point however is 
comparatively unimportant as aflect- 
ing my main purpose. 

1 Treneeus (iii. rr. 1), after speaking 
of Cerinthus, the Nicolaitans, and 
others, proceeds ‘non, quemadmodum 
illi dicunt, alterum quidem fabricatorem 
(i.e. demiurgum), alium autem Patrem 
Domini: et alium quidem fabricatoris 
filium, alterum vero de superioribus 
Christum, quem et impassibilem per- 
Beverasse, descendentem in Jesum 
filium fabricatoris, et iterum revolasse 


religion. Thus regarded, the 


in suum pleroma.’ The doctrine is pre- 
cisely that which he has before as- 
cribed to Cerinthus (i. 26. 1), but the 
mode of statement may have been 
borrowed from the Nicolaitans or the 
Valentinians or some other later Gnos- 
tics. There is however no improbabi- 
lity in the supposition that Cerinthus 
used the word pleroma inthis way. See 
the detached note on wA7jpwua below. 

2 j, 19, ii. 9. See above p. 102, note 2. 
On the force of xaroxeiy see the note 
on the earlier of the two passages. 

3 ii. 6 mapeddBere Tor Xpiorov, “Iy- 
gov Tov Kupior. 

4 j, 20, 22. 


THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 113 


Apostle’s language gains force and point; though no stress can 
be laid on explanations which are so largely conjectural. 

But if so, the very generality of his language shows that The Gnos- 
these speculations were still vague and fluctuating. The dif- Lenk 
ference which separates these heretics from Cerinthus may be caren 
raeasured by the greater precision and directness in the Apo- undeve- 
stolic counter-statement, as we turn from the Epistle to the topes 
Colossians to the Gospel of St John. In this interval, extend- 
ing over nearly a quarter of a century, speculation has taken 
a definite shape. The elements of Gnostic theory, which 
were before held in solution, had meanwhile crystallized around 
the facts of the Gospel. Yet still we seem justified, even at 
the earlier date, in speaking of these general ideas as Gnostic, 
guarding ourselves at the same time against misunderstanding 
with the twofold caution, that we here employ the term to 
express the simplest and most elementary conceptions of this 
tendency of thought, and that we do not postulate its use as a 
distinct designation of any sect or sects at this early date. 

Thus limited, the view that the writer of this epistle is com- 
bating a Gnostic heresy seems free from all objections, while it 
appears necessary to explain his language; and certainly it 
does not, as is sometimes imagined, place any weapon in the 
hands of those who would assail the early date and Apostolic 


authorship of the epistle. 


COL. 8 


AGU 


CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


Theunder- JITHOUT the preceding investigation the teaching of this 
eve W epistle would be very imperfectly understood; for its 
necessary. direction was necessarily determined by the occasion which gave 
rise to it. Only when we have once grasped the nature of 
the doctrine which St Paul is combating, do we perceive that 
every sentence is instinct with life and meaning. 
ahi We have seen that the error of the heretical teachers was 
ead twofold. They had a false conception in theology, and they had 
ee A false basis of morals. It has been pointed out also, that these 
root. two were closely connected together, and had their root in the 
same fundamental error, the idea of matter as the abode of evil 
and thus antagonistic to God. 
So the As the two elements of the heretical doctrine were derived 
ce from the same source, so the reply to both was sought by the 
thesame Apostle in the same idea, the conception of the Person of Christ 
truth, : 
as the one absolute mediator between God and man, the true 
and only reconciler of heaven and earth. 

But though they are thus ultimately connected, yet it will 
be necessary for the fuller understanding of St Paul’s position 
to take them apart, and to consider first the theological and 
then the ethical teaching of the epistle. 

1. The 1. This Colossian heresy was no coarse and vulgar develop- 
theological 1 ont of falsehood. It soared far above the Pharisaic Judaism 


teaching 
ofthe which St Paul refutes in the Epistle to the Galatians. The 


heretics. 
questions in which it was interested lie at the very root of our 


CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. IIS 


religious consciousness. The impulse was given to its specu- Its lofty 
lations by an overwhelming sense of the unapproachable mae 
majesty of God, by an instinctive recognition of the chasm 
which separates God from man, from the world, from matter. 
Its energy was sustained by the intense yearning after some 
mediation which might bridge over this chasm, might establish 
inter-communion between the finite and the Infinite. Up to 
this point it was deeply religious in the best sense of the term. 

The answer which it gave to these questions we have but com- 
already seen. In two respects this answer failed signally. On Pe 
the one hand it was drawn from the atmosphere of mystical 
speculation. It had no foundation in history, and made no* 
appeal to experience. On the other hand, notwithstanding 
its complexity, it was unsatisfactory in its results; for in this 
plurality of mediators none was competent to meet the require- 
ments of the case. God here and man there—no angel or 
spirit, whether one or more, being neither God nor man, could 
truly reconcile the two. Thus as regards credentials it was 
without a guarantee; while as regards efficiency it was wholly 
inadequate. 

The Apostle pointed out to the Colossians a more excellent The 

way. It was the one purpose of Christianity to satisfy those oe 
very yearnings which were working in their hearts, to solve reine 
that very problem which had exercised their minds. In Christ of Christ. 
they would find the answer which they sought. His life—His 
cross and resurrection—was the guarantee; His Person—the The me- 
Word Incarnate—was the solution. He alone filled up, He ae 
alone could fill up, the void which lay between God and man, eee 
could span the gulf which separated the Creator and creation. 
This solution offered by the Gospel is as simple as it is ade- 
quate. To their cosmical speculations, and to their religious 
yearnings alike, Jesus Christ is the true answer.. In the 
World, as in the Church, He is the one only mediator, the one 
only reconciler. This twofold idea runs like a double thread 
through the fabric of the Apostle’s teaching in those passages 
of the epistle where he is describing the Person of Christ. 


8—2 


116 


(i) In the 
Universe. 


Impor- 
tance of 


CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


It will be convenient for the better understanding of St 
Paul’s teaching to consider these two aspects of Christ’s me- 
diation apart—its function in the natural and in the spiritual 
order respectively. 

(i) The heresy of the Colossian teachers took its rise, as 
we saw, in their cosmical speculations. It was therefore natural 
that the Apostle in replying should lay stress on the function 
of the Word in the creation and government of the world. 
This is the aspect of His work most prominent in the first 
of the two distinctly Christological passages. The Apostle 
there predicates of the Word, not only prior, but absolute 
existence. All things were created through Him, are sustained 
in Him, are tending towards Him. Thus He is the begin- 
ning, middle, and end, of creation. This He is, because He 
is the very image of the Invisible God, because in Him dwells 
the plenitude of Deity. 

This creative and administrative work of Christ the Word 


this aspect in the natural order of things is always emphasized in the 


of the 
Person of 
Christ, 


writings of the Apostles, when they touch upon the doctrine 
of His Person. It stands in the forefront of the prologue to 
St John’s Gospel: it is hardly less prominent in the opening 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews. His mediatorial function in the 
Church is represented as flowing from His mediatorial func- 
tion in the world. With ourselves this idea has retired very 
much into the background. Though in the creed common 
to all the Churches we profess our belief in Him, as the 
Being ‘through whom all things were created,’ yet in reality 
this confession seems to exercise very little influence on our 
thoughts. And the loss is serious. How much our theological 
conceptions suffer in breadth and fulness by the neglect, a 
moment’s reflexion will show. How much more hearty would be 
tae sympathy of theologians with the revelations of science and 
the developments of history, if they habitually connected them 
with the operation of the same Divine Word who is the centre 
of all their religious aspirations, it is needless to say. Through 
the recognition of this idea with all the consequences which 


CHAKACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


flow from it, as a living influence, more than in any other way, 
may we hope to strike the chords of that ‘vaster music,’ which 
results only from the harmony of knowledge and faith, of rever- 
ence and research. 

It will be said indeed, that this conception leaves un- 
touched the philosophical difficulties which beset the subject ; 
that creation still remains as much a mystery as before. 
This may be allowed. But is there any reason to think that 
with our present limited capacities the veil which shrouds it 
ever will be or can be removed? The metaphysical specula- 
tions of twenty-five centuries have done nothing to raise it. 
The physical investigations of our own age from their very 
nature can do nothing; for, busied with the evolution of phe- 
nomena, they lie wholly outside this question, and do not even 
touch the fringe of the difficulty. But meanwhile revelation 
has interposed and thrown out the idea, which, if it leaves 
many questions unsolved, gives a breadth and unity to our 
conceptions, at once satisfying our religious needs and linking 
our scientific instincts with our theological beliefs. 

(ii) But, if Christ’s mediatorial office in the physical crea- 
tion was the starting point of the Apostle’s teaching, His 
mediatorial office in the spiritual creation is its principal theme. 
The cosmogonies of the false teachers were framed not so 
much in the interests of philosophy as in the interests of re- 
ligion; and the Apostle replies to them in the same spirit 
and with the same motive. If the function of Christ is unique 


117 


notwith- 


standing 
difficulties 
yet un- 


solved. ” 


(ii) In the 
Church. 


in the Universe, so is it also in the Church. He is the sole Its abso- 


and absolute link between God and humanity. Nothing short 
of His personality would suffice as a medium of reconcilia- 
tion between the two. Nothing short of His life and work 
in the flesh, as consummated in His passion, would serve as 
apn assurance of God’s love and pardon. His cross is the atone- 
ment of mankind with God. He is the Head with whom 
all the living members of the body are in direct and imme- 
diate communication, who suggests their manifold activities 
to each, who directs their several functions in subordination 


lute cha- 
racter. 


118 


Hence 
angelic 
media- 
tions are 
funda- 
mentally 
wrong. 


Christ's 
mediation 
in the 
Church 
justified 
by His 
mediation 
in the 
World. 


Relation 
of the 
doctrine of 
the Word 


CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


to the healthy working of the whole, from whom they indi- 
vidually receive their inspiration and their strength. 

And being all this He cannot consent to share His prero- 
gative with others. He absorbs in Himself the whole function 
of mediation. Through Him alone, without any interposing 
link of communication, the human soul has access to the 
Father. Here was the true answer to those deep yearnings after 
spiritual communion with God, which sought, and could not 
find, satisfaction in the manifold and fantastic creations of a 
dreamy mysticism. The worship of angels might have the 
semblance of humility; but it was in fact a contemptuous 
defiance of the fundamental idea of the Gospel, a flat denial 
of the absolute character of Christ’s Person and office. It 
was a severance of the proper connexion with the Head, an 
amputation of the disordered limb, which was thus disjoined 
from the source of life and left to perish for want of spiritual 
nourishment. 

The language of the New Testament writers is beset with 
difficulties, so long as we conceive of our Lord only in con- 
nexion with the Gospel revelation: but, when with the Apo- 
stles we realise in Him the same Divine Word who is and 
ever has been the light of the whole world, who before Chris- 
tianity wrought first in mankind at large through the avenues 
of the conscience, and afterwards more particularly in the Jews 
through a special though still imperfect revelation, then all 
these difficulties fall away. Then we understand the signifi- 
cance, and we recognise the truth, of such passages as these: 
‘No man cometh unto the Father, but by me’: ‘There is no 
salvation in any other’; ‘He that disbelieveth the Son shall 
not see life, but the wrath of God abideth upon him*’ The 
exclusive claims advanced in Christ’s name have their full and 
perfect justification in the doctrine of the Eternal Word. 

The old dispensation is primarily the revelation of the abso- 
lute sovereignty of God. It vindicates this truth against two 
opposing forms of error, which in their extreme types are repre- 

1 Joh, xiv. 6, Acts iv. 12, Joh. iii. 36. 


CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLZ. 11g 


sented by Pantheism and Manicheism respectively. The Pan- to the mo- 
theist identifies God with the world: the Manichee attributes af ays 


to the world an absolute existence, independent of God. With vee 
the Pantheist sin ceases to have any existence: for it is only 
one form of God’s working. With the Manichee sin is in- 
herent in matter, which is antagonistic to God. The teaching 
of the Old Testament, of which the key-note is struck in the 
opening chapters of Genesis, is a refutation of both these errors. 
God is distinct from the world, and He is the Creator of 
the world. Evil is not inherent in God, but neither is it in- 
herent in the material world. Sin is the disobedience of in- 
telligent beings whom He has created, and whom He has 
endowed with a free-will, which they can use or misuse. 

The revelation of the New Testament is the proper com- The New 
plement to the revelation of the Old. It holds this position in a ene 


If the Old Testament sets forth the abso- mentary 


two main respects. 
to the Old. 


lute unity of God—His distinctness from and sovereignty over 
His creatures—the New Testament points out how He holds 
communion with the world and with humanity, how man 
becomes one with Him. And again, if the Old Testament 
shows the true character of sin, the New Testament teaches 
the appointed means of redemption. On the one hand the 
monotheism of the Old Testament is supplemented by the 
theanthropism’ of the New. Thus the theology of revelation is 
completed. On the other hand, the hamartiology of the Old 
Tcstament has its counterpart in the soteriology of the New. 
Thus the economy of revelation is perfected. 


1 { am indebted for the term thean- 
thropism, as describing the substance 
of the new dispensation, to an article 
by Prof. Westcott in the Contemporary 
Review iv. p. 417 (December, 1867); 
but it has been used independently, 
though in very rare instances, by other 
writers. The value of terms such as I 
have employed here in fixing ideas is 
enhanced by their strangeness, and will 
excuse any appearance of affectation. 


In applying the terms theanthro- 
pism and soteriology to the New Testa- 
ment, as distinguished from the Old, 
it is not meant to suggest that the 
ideas involved in them were wholly 
wanting in the Old, but only to indi- 
cate that the conceptions, which were 
inchoate and tentative and subsidiary 
in the one, attain the most prominent 
position and are distinctly realised in 
the other. 


129 


2. The 
ethical 
error of 
the here- 
tics. 


Their 
practical 
earnest- 
ness, 


but funda- 
mental 
miscon- 
ception 
and con- 
sequent 
failure. 


St Paul 
substi- 
tutes a 
principle 
for ordi- 
nances. 


CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


2. When we turn from the theology of these Colossian 
heretics to their ethieal teaching, we find it characterised by 
the same earnestness. Of them it might indeed be said that 
they did ‘hunger and thirst after righteousness.’ Escape from 
impurity, immunity from evil, was a passion with them, But 
it was no less true that notwithstanding all their sincerity they 
‘went astray in the wilderness’; ‘hungry and thirsty, their soul 
fainted within them.’ By their fatal transference of the abode of 
sin from the human heart within to the material world without, 
they had incapacitated themselves from finding the true anti- 
dote. Where they placed the evil, there they necessarily sought 
the remedy. Hence they attempted to fence themselves about, 
and to purify their lives by a code of rigorous prohibitions. 
Their energy was expended on battling with the physical con- 
ditions of human life. Their whole mind was absorbed in 
the struggle with imaginary forms of evil. Necessarily their 
character was moulded by the thoughts which habitually en- 
gaged them. Where the ‘elements of the world,’ the ‘things 
which perish in the using’, engrossed all their attention, it 
could not fail but that they should be dragged down from the 
serene heights of the spiritual life into the cloudy atmosphere 
which shrouds this lower earth. 

St Paul sets himself to combat this false tendency. Yor 
negative prohibitions he substitutes a positive principle; for 
special enactments, a comprehensive motive. He tells them 
that all their scrupulous restrictions are vain, because they fail 
to touch the springs of action. If they would overcome the 
evil, they must strike at the root of the evil. Their point ctf 
view must be entirely changed. They must transfer them- 
selves into a wholly new sphere of energy. This transference 
is nothing less than a migration from earth to heaven—from 
the region of the external and transitory to the region of 
the spiritual and eternal*, For a code of rules they must 
substitute a principle of life, which is one in its essence but 


1 ii. 20, 22. 2 ili, 1 Sq. 


CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. I2I 


infinite in its application, which will meet every emergency, 
will control every action, will resist every form of evil. 

This principle they have in Christ. With Him they have This prin- 

died to the world; with Him they have risen to God. Christ, nie Feat 
the revelation of God’s holiness, of God’s righteousness, of Mage | 
God’s love, is light, is life, is heaven. With Him they have been 
translated into a higher sphere, have been brought face to face 
with the Eternal Presence, Let them only realise this trans- 
lation. It involves new insight, new motives, new energies. 
They will no more waste themselves upon vexatious special 
restrictions : for they will be furnished with a higher inspiration 
which will cover all the minute details of action. They will 
not exhaust their energies in crushing this or that rising desire, 
but they will kill the whole body* of their earthly passions 
through the strong arm of this personal communion with God 
in Christ. 

When we once grasp this idea, which lies at the root of St Paul's 
St Paul’s ethical teaching, the moral difficulty which is sup- preci 
posed to attach to his doctrine of faith and works has vanished. ae ae 


It is simply an impossibility that faith should exist without in the 
works. Though in form he states his doctrine as a relation of eislonts. 
contrast between the two, in substance it resolves itself into ate 
a question of precedence. Faith and works are related as 
principle and practice. Faith—the repose in the unseen, the> 
recognition of eternal principles of truth and right, the sense 

of personal obligations to an Eternal Being who vindicates 
these principles—must come first. Faith is not an intellectual 
assent, nor a sympathetic sentiment merely. It is the absolute 
surrender of self to the will of a Being who has a right to 
command this surrender. It is this which places men in 
personal relation to God, which (in St Paul’s language) justifies 
them before God. For it touches the springs of their actions ; 

it fastens not on this or that detail of conduct, but extends 


lii, rr év 79 drexdice Too cbma- vuels TA TavTa, and ver. g drexdved- 
ToS THs capKés, iii. 5 vexpwoaTe ovv TH EVOL TOY Madaiov avOpwrov. See the 
védn with ver. 8 vuri 52 droGesde kai notes on the several passages. 


122 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


throughout the whole sphere of moral activity; and thus it 
determines their character as responsible beings in the sight 
of God. 


The From the above account it will have appeared that the dis- 
sa tinctive feature of this epistle is its Christology. The doctrine 
thisepistle of the Person of Christ is here stated with greater precision 
and fulness than in any other of St Paul’s epistles. It is 
therefore pertinent to ask (even though the answer must neces- 
sarily be brief) what relation this statement bears to certain 
other enunciations of the same doctrine; to those for instance 


snesired which occur elsewhere in St Paul’s own letters, to those which 
in relation 


to are found in other Apostolic writings, and to those which 
appear in the fathers of the succeeding generations. 

1. The 1. The Christology of the Colossian Epistle is in no way 

eer gt different from that of the Apostle’s earlier letters. It may 


ee indeed be called a development of his former teaching, but only 
epistles ag exhibiting the doctrine in fresh relations, as drawing new 
deductions from it, as defining what had hitherto been left un- 
defined, not as superadding any foreign element to it. The 
doctrine is practically involved in the opening and closing words 
of his earliest extant epistle: ‘The Church which is in God 
the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’; ‘The grace of our Lord 
Jesus Christ be with you’.’ The main conception of the Person 
of Christ, as enforced in the Colossian Epistle, alone justifies and 
explains this language, which otherwise would be emptied of all 
significance. And again: it had been enunciated by the Apostle 
explicitly, though briefly, in the earliest directly doctrinal passage 
which bears on the subject; ‘One Lord Jesus Christ, through 
whom are all things and we through Him’.’ The absolute 
the same universal mediation of the Son is declared as unreservedly in 
eae this passage from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, as in any 


1 y Thess, i. 1, v. 28. even where the term itself is not 

2 1 Cor. viii. 6 & od Ta mdvra cat used. See the dissertation on the doc- 
ucts 5’ avrod. The expression 6’ of trine of the Logos in the Apostolic 
implies the conception of the Logos, writers. 


CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 123 


later statement of the Apostle: and, if all the doctrinal and less fully 

. : : la a sa : eveloped. 
practical inferences which it implicitly involves were not 
directly emphasized at this early date, it was because the cir- 
cumstances did not yet require explicitness on these points. 
New forms of error bring into prominence new aspects of the 
truth. The heresies of Laodicea and Colossx have been inva- 
luable to the later Church in this respect. The Apostle himself, 
it is not too much to say, realised with ever-increasing force the 
manifoldness, the adaptability, the completeness of the Christian 
idea, notwithstanding its simplicity, as he opposed it to each 
successive development of error. The Person of Christ proved 
the complete answer to false speculations at Colosse, as it had 
been found the sovereign antidote to false practices at Corinth. 
All these unforeseen harmonies must have appeared to him, as 
they will appear to us, fresh evidences of its truth. 

2. And when we turn from St Paul to the other Apostolic 2. The 


be : 5 f Christ- 
writings which dwell on the Person of Christ from a doctrinal aieey of 


Sears 
implies the same fundamental conception, though they may not Writings. 
always present it in exactly the same aspect. More especially 

in the Epistle to the Hebrews first, and in the Gospel of St Their 
John afterwards, the form of expression is identical with the eee 
statement of St Paul. In both these writings the universe is dentty- 
said to have been created or to exist by or through Him. 

This is the crucial expression, which involves in itself all 

the higher conceptions of the Person of Christ". The Epistle 

to the Hebrews seems to have been written by a disciple of 

St Paul immediately after the Apostle’s death, and therefore 
within some five or six years from the date which has been 
assigned to the Colossian letter. The Gospel of St John, if the 
traditional report may be accepted, dates about a quarter of a 
century later; but it is linked with our epistle by the fact that 

the readers for whom it was primarily intended belonged to the 


point of view, we find them enunciating it in language which 


neighbouring districts of proconsular Asia. Thus it illustrates, 


1 Joh. i. 3 wdvra de avrov éyévero x.7.d., Heb. i. 2 dv ob Kal éroinoer rovs 
alovas. 


124 


Firmness 
of the 
apostolic 
idea, 


3. The 
Christ- 
ology of 
the suc- 
ceeding 
ages, 


Its loose- 
ness of 
econcep- 
tion. 


CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


and is illustrated by, the teaching of St Paul in this letter. 
More especially by the emphatic use of the term Logos, which 
St Paul for some reason has suppressed, it supplies the centre 
round which the ideas gather, and thus gives unity and direct- 
ness to the conception. 

In the Christology of these Apostolic writings there is a firm- 
ness and precision which leaves no doubt about the main con- 
ception present to the mind of the writers. The idea of Christ 
as an intermediate being, neither God nor man, is absolutely and 
expressly excluded. On the one hand His humanity is distinctly 
emphasized. On the other He is represented as existing from 
eternity, as the perfect manifestation of the Father, as the abso- 
lute mediator in the creation and government of the world. 

3. But, when we turn from these Apostolic statements to 
the writings of succeeding generations, we are struck with the 
contrast *, A vagueness, a flaccidity, of conception betrays itself 
in their language. 

In the Apostolic Fathers and in the earlier Apologists w 
find indeed for the most part a practical appreciation of th 
Person of Christ, which leaves nothing to be desired; but as 
soon as they venture upon any directly dogmatic statement, we 
miss at once the firmness of grasp and clearness of conception 
which mark the writings of the Apostles. If they desire to 
emphasize the majesty of His Person, they not unfrequently fall 
into language which savours of patripassianism™. If on the other 
hand they wish to present Him in His mediatorial capacity, 
they use words which seem to imply some divine being, who 
is God and yet not quite God, ncither Creator nor creature*. 


Cc 
e 


quoted in the note on Clem. Rom. 2 
Ta Tabnuata avTov. 

8 The unguarded language of Justin 
for instance illustrates the statemeni, 
in the text. On the one hand Peia- 
vius, Theol. Dogm. de Trin. ii. 3. 2, dis- 
tinctly accuses him of Arianism: ou 


1 The remarks on the theology of 
the Apostolic Fathers, as compared 
with the. Apostles, in Dorner’s Lei:re 
von der Person Christi 1. p. 130 sq. 
seem to me perfectly just and highly 
significant. See also Pressensé Trois 
Premiers Siécles 11. p. 406 sq. on the 


unsystematic spirit of the Apostolic 
Fathers. 
2 See for instance the passages 


the other Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. ii. 4. 1 8q., 
indignantly repudiates the charge anid 
claims him as strictly orthodox. Peta- 


CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 125 


The Church needed a long education, before she was fitted 

to be the expositor of the true Apostolic doctrine. A conflict 

of more than two centuries with Gnostics, Ebionites, Sabellians, 

Arians, supplied the necessary discipline. The true successors The Apc- 
of the Apostles in this respect are not the fathers of the second shea 
century, but the fathers of the third and fourth centuries. In the !* 98° 
expositors of the Nicene age we find indeed technical terms 

and systematic definitions, which we do not find in the Apostles 
themselves; but, unless I have wholly misconceived the nature 

of the heretical teaching at Colosse and the purport of St Paul’s 

reply, the main idea of Christ’s Person, with which he here 
confronts this Gnostic Judaism, is essentially the same as that 

which the fathers of these later centuries opposed to the Sabel- 
lianism and the Arianism of their own age. If I mistake not, 

the more distinctly we realise the nature of the heresy, the 

more evident will it become that any conception short of the 

perfect deity and perfect humanity of Christ would not have 
furnished a satisfactory answer; and this is the reason why 

I have dwelt at such length on the character of the Colossian 

false teaching, and why I venture to call especial attention to 

this part of my subject. 


Of the style of the letter to the Colossians I shall have occa- Style of 
? : : . this 

sion to speak hereafter, when I come to discuss its genuine- enistle, 
ness. It is sufficient to say here, that while the hand of St Paul 
is unmistakeable throughout this epistle, we miss the flow and 
the versatility of the Apostle’s earlier letters. 

A comparison with the Epistles to the Corinthians and to the 
Philippians will show the difference. It is distinguished from Its rug- 

; : : - 1 , gedness 

them by a certain ruggedness of expression, a ‘want of finish’ gna com- 
often bordering on obscurity. What account should be given of P75 
this characteristic, it is impossible to say. The divergence of 
vius indeed approaches the subject nevertheless Justin’s language is occa- 
from the point of view of later Western _ sionally such as no Athanasian could 
theology and, unable to appreciate have used. ‘The treatment of this 


Justin’s doctrine of the Logos, does father by Dorner (Lehre 1. p. 414 sq.) 
less than justice to this father; but is just and avoids both extremes. 


126 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


style is not greater than will appear in the ietters of any active- 
minded man, written at different times and under different 
circumstances. The epistles which I have selected for contrast 
suggest that the absence of all personal connexion with the 
Colossian Church will partially, if not wholly, explain the dimi- 
nished fluency of this letter. At the same time no epistle of 

bat essen- St Paul is more vigorous in conception or more instinct with 

sisal meaning. It is the very compression of the thoughts which 
creates the difficulty. If there is a want of fluency, there is no 
want of force. Feebleness is the last charge which can be 
brought against this epistle. 


Analysis. The following is an analysis of the epistle: 


I. Inrropuctory (i. r—13). 
(1) i. 1, 2. Opening salutation. 
(2) i. 3—8. Thanksgiving for the progress of the Colossians 
hitherto. 
(3) i. 9—13. Prayer for their future advance in knowledge and 
well-doing through Christ. 
[This leads the Apostle to speak of Christ as the 
only path of progress. ] 


II. Docrriat (i. 13—ii. 3). 
The Person and Office of Christ. 
(1) i. 13, 14. Through the Son we have our deliverance, our 
redemption. 
(2) i. 15—19. The Preeminence of the Son ; 
(i) As the Head of the natural Creation, the Universe 
(i. 15—17) ; 
(ii) As the Head of the new moral Creation, the 
Church (i. 18). 
Thus He is first in all things ; and this, because the pleroma 
has its abode in Him (i. 19). 
(3) 1. 20—ii. i. The Work of the Son—a work of recon- 
ciliation ; 
(i) Described generally (i. 20). 
(ii) Applied specially to the Colossians (i. 21—23). 


CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 137 


(iii) St Paul’s own part in carrying out this work. His Analysis, 

sufferings and preaching. The ‘mystery’ with which 
he is charged (i. 24—27). 

His anxiety on behalf of all (i. 28, 29): and more 
especially of the Colossian and neighbouring Churches 
(ii. r—3). 

[This expression of anxiety leads him by a direct path 
to the next division of the epistle. ] 


IIT, PoLemican (ii. 4—iii. 4). 

Warning against errors. 

(1) 11. 4—8. The Colossians charged to abide in the truth 
of the Gospel as they received it at first, .nd not to be 
led astray by a strange philosophy which the new teachers 
offer. 

(2) ii. g—15. The truth stated first positively and then 
negatively. 

[In the passage which follows (ii. g—23) it will be ob- 
served how St Paul vibrates between the theological 
and practical bearings of the truth, marked a, f, re- 
spectively. | | 

(i) Positively. 

(a) The pleroma dwells wholly in Christ and is com. 
municated through Him (ii. 9, 10). 

(8) The true circumcision is a spiritual circumcision 
GL F2, (12): 

(ii) Megatively. Christ has 
(8) annulled the law of ordinances (ii. 14) ; 
(2) triumphed over all spiritual agencies, however power- 
ful (ii. 15). 
(3) ii. 16—iii. 4. Obligations following thereupon. 
(i) Consequently the Colossians must not 

(8) either submit to ritual prohibitions (ii. 16, 17), 

(2) or substitute the worship of inferior beings for 
allegiance to the Head (ii. 18, 19). 

(ii) On the contrary this must henceforth be their 
rule ; 


128 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


Analysis. 1. They have died with Christ; and with Him they 
have died to their old life, to earthly ordinances (ii- 
20—23). 
2. They have risen with Christ; and with Him’ they 
have risen to a new life, to heavenly principles (iii. 
I—4). 


IV. Horratony (iii, 5—iv. 6). 
Practical application of this death and this resurrection. 
(1) ul 5—17. Comprehensive rules. 
(i) What vices are to be put off, being mortified in this 
death (iii. 5—11). 
(ii) What graces are to be put on, being quickened 
through this resurrection (iil. 12—17). 
(2) iti. r8—iv. 6. Special precepts. 
(a) The obligations 
Of wives and husbands (iii. 18, 19) ; 
Of children and parents (iii. 20, 21) ; 
Of slaves and masters (iil. 22—iv. 1). 
(5) The duty of prayer and thanksgiving ; with spevial 
intercession on the Apostle’s behalf (iv. 2—4). 
(c) The duty of propriety in behaviour towards the 
unconverted (iv. 5, 6). 


V. Perrsonat (iv. 7—18). 
(x) iv. 7—9. Explanations relating to the letter itself. 
(2) iv. 1o—14. Salutations from divers persons, 
(3) iv. 15—17. Salutations to divers persons. A message 
relating to Laodicea. 
(4) iv. 18. Farewell. 


WPOS KOAASSAELS. 


COL. 


WE SPEAK WISDOM AMONG THEM THAT ARE PERFECT. 
YET NOT THE WISDOM OF THIS WORLD. 
BUT WE SPEAK THE WISDOM OF GOD IN A MYSTERY. 


Iste vas electionis 

Vires omnes rationis 
Humane transgreditur : 

Super choros angelorum 

Raptus, cli secretorum 
Doctrinis imbuitur. 


De hoc vase tam fecundo, 
Tam electo et tam mundo, 
Tu nos, Christe, complue ; 
Nos de luto, nos de fece, 
Tua sancta purga prece, 
Regno tuo statue. 


1TPOx 


KOAASSAETS. 


| pe dmrdaTtoNos Xpiorov “Incov Sia OeAnparos 


~ (ee Le ~ ? a 
Geov, kat Tyobeos 6 ddeAos, * Tots Ev KoNooaais 


1, 2. ‘Paut, an apostle of Christ 
Jesus by no personal merit but by 
God’s gracious will alone, and TIMoTHY, 
our brother in the faith, to the conse- 
crated people of God in Cotossa, the 
brethren who are stedfast in their 
allegiance and faithful in Christ. May 
grace the well-spring of allmercies, and 
peace the crown of all blessings, bo 
bestowed upon you from God our 
Father’ 

I. dzmdcrodos] On the exceptional 
omission of this title in some of St 
Paul’s epistles see Phil. i. 1. Though 
there is no reason for supposing that 
his authority was directly impugned 
in the Colossian Church, yet he inter- 
poses by virtue of his Apostolic com- 
mission and therefore uses his autho- 
ritative title. 

dia OeArjparos Gecod| Asin 1 Cor.i.1, 
2 Or a. 5. ephes: 1) 1, 2 Tim, i 3. 
These passages show that the words 
cannot have a polemical bearing. If 
they had been directed against those 
who questioned his Apostleship, they 
would probably have taken a stronger 
form. The expression must therefore 
be regarded as a renunciation of all 
personal worth, and a declaration of 
God’s unmerited grace; comp. Rom. 
ix. 16 dpa ovv ov Tod Oédovros ovdé 
TOU TpéxovTos GAAa Tov eAeavTOS Ceod. 
The same words 61a OeAnjparos Gcod are 
used in other connexions in Rom. xv. 
32, 2 Cor. viii. 5, where no polemical 
reference is possible. 

Tiuobeos| The name of this disciple 
is attached to the Apostle’s own in 


the heading of the Philippian letter, 
which was probably written at an 
earlier stage in his Roman captivity. 
It appears also in the same connexion 
in the Epistle to Philemon, but not in 
the Epistle to the Ephesians, though 
these two letters were contempora- 
neous with one another and with the 
Colossian letter. For an explanation 
of the omission, see the introduction 
to that epistle. 

In the Epistles to the Philippians 
and to Philemon the presence of Ti- 
mothy is forgotten at once (see Phil. 
i. 1). In this epistle the plural is 
maintained throughout the thanks- 
giving (vv. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9), but after- 
wards dropped, when the Apostle be- 
gins to speak in his own person (i. 23, 
24), and so he continues to the end. 
The exceptions (i. 28, iv. 3) are rather 
apparent than real. 

6 adeAdos| Timothy is again desig- 
nated simply ‘the brother’ in 2 Cor, 
i. 1, Philem. 1, but not in Heb. xiii. 23, 
where the right reading is rov ddeAdov 
nuov. The same designation is used 
of Quartus (Rom. xvi. 23), of Sosthenes 
(1 Cor. i. 1), of Apollos (1 Cor. xvi. 12); 
comp. 2 Cor. viii. 18, ix. 3, 5, xii. 18. 
As some designation seemed to be 
required, and as Timothy could not 
be called an Apostle (see Galatians, 
p. 96, note 2), this, as the simplest 
title, would naturally suggest itself. 

2. Kodoooais] For the reasons 
why this form is preferred here, while 
KoAaccaeis is adopted in the heading 
of the epistle, see above, p. 16 sq. 


oa 


132 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[I. 3 


dylows Kal miorois ddeApois é€v Xpict@* yapis vuiv 
Kai elonvn dio Oeou TATPOS MOV. 
~ ~ ~ \ A ~ 
3Evyapictoupey TH Oew [Kai] watpi Tov Kupiov 


ayiows] ‘saints,’ i.e, the people con- 
secrated to God, the Israel of the new 
covenant; see the note on Phil. i. 1. 
This mode of address marks the later 
epistles of St Paul. In his earlier 
letters (1, 2 Thess., 1, 2 Cor., Gal.) he 
writes 77 éxkAnoia, Tats exxAnoias. The 
change begins with the Epistle to the 
Romans, and from that time forward 
the Apostle always uses dyios in 
various combinations in addressing 
churches (Rom., Phil. Col., Ephes.). 
For a similar phenomenon, serving as 
a chronological mark, see the note on 
n xapus, iv. 18. The word dyiocs must 
here be treated as a substantive in 
accordance with its usage in parallel 
passages, and not as an adjective con- 
nected with ddedgois. See the next 
note. 

kai micros adeAdois] This unusual 
addition is full of meaning. Some 
members of the Colossian Church were 
shaken in their allegiance, even if they 
had not fallen from it. The Apostle 
therefore wishes it to be understood 
that, when he speaks of the saints, he 
means the true and stedfast members 
of the brotherhood. In this way he 
obliquely hints at the defection. Thus 
tho words kat miotots ddeAois are a 
supplementary explanation of rots a- 
ylots. He does not directly exclude 
any, but he indirectly warns all. The 
epithet mords cannot mean simply 
‘believing’; for then it would add no- 
thing which is not already contained 
in dyios and ddeddois. Its passive 
sense, ‘trustworthy, stedfast, unswerv- 
ing,” must be prominent here, as in 
Acts Xvi. 15 ei xexpixaté pe motHy TO 
Kupio eva. See Galatians p. 155. 

év Xpior@| Most naturally connected 
with both words miocrois ddeddois, 
though referring chiefly to mcrois ; 
comp. Ephes. vi. 21 muorés Staxovos év 


Kupio, I Tim. i. 2 yunoio réxve év ti- 
ore. For the expression mords év 
Xp.aTa, ev Kupia, see also 1 Cor. iv. 17, 
Ephes. i. 1. The Apostle assumes 
that the Colossian brethren are ‘ sted- 
fast in Christ.’ Their state thus con- 
trasts with the description of the he- 
retical teacher, who (ii. 19) ov xparet 
TH Kehadny. 

xapis x.7.A.] On this form of saluta- 
tion sce the note to 1 Thess. i. 1. 

matpos nuov| The only instance in 
St Paul’s epistles, where the name of 
the Father stands alone in the open- 
ing benediction without the addition 
of Jesus Christ. The omission was 
noticed by Origen (Rom. I. § 8, Iv. p. 
467), and by Chrysostom (ad Joc. xt. p. 
324, Hom. in 2 Cor. Xxx,x.p.651). But 
transcribers naturally aimed at uni- 
formity, and so in many copies we find 
the addition cal Kupiov Inaot Xpicrob. 
The only other exception to the Apo- 
stle’s usual form is in 1 Thessalonians, 
where the benediction is shorter still, 
xapts vuiv Kat efonvn, and where like- 
wise the copyists have supplied words 
to lengthen it out in accordance with 
St Paul’s common practice. 

3—8. ‘We never cease to pour 
forth our thanksgiving to God the 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ on 
your account, whensoever we pray to 
Him. We are full of thankfulness 
for the tidings of the fatth which ye 
have in Christ Jesus, and the dove which 
ye show towards all the people of God, 
while ye look forward to the hope 
which is stored up for you in heaven 
as a treasure for the life to come. 
This hope was communicated to you 
in those earlier lessons, when the Gos- 
pel was preached to you in its purity 
and integrity—the one universal un- 
changeable Gospel, which was made 
known to you, even as it was carried 


I. 4, 5] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


133 


~ ca rod / \ ol , 
nav Incou Xpietov TavTOTE TEL UMwY TPOTEVXOMEVOL® 
\ e ~ ~ vod 4 A 
taKoVTayTEs THY Tic TW UuwY Ev XpioTto Incov, Kat THY 
ray of > / \ , A \ 
dyarny [jv exeTe] els mavTas Tovs adyious, Soa THY 


throughout the world, approving itself 
by its fruits wherescever it is piant- 
ed. For, as elsewhere, so also in you, 
these fruits were manifested from the 
first day when ye received your lessons 
in, and apprehended the power of, the 
genuine Gospel, which is not a law of 
ordinances but a dispensation of grace, 
not a device of men but a truth of 
God. Such was the word preached to 
you by Epaphras, our beloved fellow- 
servant in our Master’s household, 
who in our absence and on our behalf 
has ministered to you the Gospel of 
Christ, and who now brings back to us 
the welcome tidings of the love which 
ye show in the Spirit.’ 

3. Evxapiotovpyev] See the notes on 
1 Thess. i. 2. 

matpi| If the cat be omitted, as the 
balance of authorities appears to sug- 
gest, the form of words here is quite 
exceptional. Elsewhere it runs 6 Geds 
kal tarp Tov Kupiov, Rom. xv.6, 2 Cor. 
Loy stor, phes. 1.3 (y. 1), 1.Pet.d. 
3; comp. Rey. i. 6: and in analogous 
cases, such as 0 Geos kal marnp nuor, 
the rule is the same. See the note on 
Clem. Rom. § 7. In iii. 17 however 
we have r@ Ge@ warpi, where the evi- 
cence is more decisive and the ex- 
pression quite as unusual. On the 
authorities for the various readings 
here see the detached note, 

mavrote x.t.\.| We here meet the 
saine difficulty about the connexion of 
the clauses, which confronts us in 
several of St Paul’s opening thanks- 
givings. The words mdyrore and zepl 
vuoy must clearly be taken together, 
because the emphasis of mepi dpudv 
would be inexplicable, if it stood at 
the beginning of a clause. But are 
they to be attached to the preceding or 
to the following sentence? The con- 
nexion with the previous words is fa- 


voured by St Paul’s usual conjunction 
of evxaptorety mavrore (see the note on 
Phil. i. 3), and by the parallel passage 
ov Tavopat evxXaploTav Umép TRAY in 
Ephes. i. 16. Thus the words will 
mean ‘ We give thanks for you always 
in our prayers. For this absolute 
use of mpocevyopevoe see Matt. vi. 7, 
Acts xvi. 25. 

4. dxovaavres] ‘having heard’ from 
Epaphras (ver. 8); for the Apostle had 
no direct personal knowledge of the 
Colossian Church: see the introduc- 
tion, D. 27.806 

ev Xpurr@ "Ingod To be connected 
with ryv riorw vad. The strict clas- 
sical language would require ry év 
X. "I, but the omission of the article is 
common in the New Testament (e. g. 
ver. 8); see the note on 1 Thess. i. 1, 
and Winer § xx. p. 169 (ed. Moulton). 
The preposition éy here and in the pa- 
rallel passage, Ephes. i. 15, denotes the 
sphere in which their faith moves, 
rather than the object to which it is 
directed (comp. 1 Cor. iii. 5); for, if 
the object had been meant, the na- 
tural preposition would have been emt 
or «is (e.g. ii. 5). This is probably the 
case also in the passages where at 
first sight it might seem otherwise, 
é.2,.1, Tim. iil. 13,2 Tim. 1.15% for 
compare 2 Tim. i. 13 év miores kat 
dyary TH év XpictS "Inoov, where the 
meaning is unambiguous. There is 
however authority in the Lxx for the 
use of ev with mioris, mucrevew, to de- 
note the object, in Jer. xii. 6, Ps. 
Ixxvili. 22, and perhaps in Mark i. 15, 
Rom. iii. 25, and (more doubtfully still) 
in Joh. iii. 15. 

nv €xete] See the detached note on 
the various readings. 

5. dua ryv edridal ‘for the hope,’ ie. 
looking to the hope. The following 
reasons seem decisive in favour of con- 


134 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


(I. 6 


; A , load ~ ~ a 
eAmrida THY a7roKEMEVHY UMLY Ev TOLS OUpavois, NY TpON- 
n~ A lol , ~ - 
KovoaTe év TH AOYH THs aAnOElas TOU EdayyeENiov, °TOU 
, e > \ \ \ a Ls 
TapovTos Els Uuas, KaOws Kal ev TavT TH KOTMwW EoTlY 


necting Ova ray é€Amida, not with evya- 
ptoroupev, but with thy miotw «.r.d., 
whether jv éxere be retained or not. 
(1) The great distance of edyapicrod- 
pev is against the former connexion; 
(2) The following clause, 7» mponxov- 
gate «.7.A., suggests that the words 
d:a THY eArida describe the motives of 
the Colossians for well-doing, rather 
than the reasons of the Apostle for 
thanksgiving: (3) The triad of Chris- 
tian graces, which St Paul delights to 
associate together, would otherwise be 
broken up. This last argument seems 
conclusive; see especiaily the corre- 
sponding thanksgiving in 1 Thess. i. 3, 
Evnpovevovtes Ua Tod epyou THs Ti- 
oTEws kal TOU KOTOU THS ayamns Kat 
Tis Umopovns THs €Amidos «Kr.A., With 
the note there. The order is the same 
here, as there; and it is the natural 
sequence. Faith rests on the past; 
love works in the present; hope looks 
to the future. They may be regard- 
ed as the efficient, material, and 
final causes respectively of the spiri- 
tual life. Compare Polycarp Phil. 3 
miaTw Tis €oTl MITHP WavTav npuor, 
€raxoAovbovons Tis edmidos, mpoayovans 
THs ayarns. 

The hope here is identified with the 
object of the hope: see the passages 
quoted on Gal. v. 5. The sense of 
eAris, a8 of the corresponding words 
in any language, oscillates between the 
subjective feeling and the objective 
realisation ; comp. Rom. viii. 24 77 
yap €Amids eowOnpev* Amis dé Bdero- 
pevn ovK eotw eAmis* 0 yap BAéret Tis 
k.7.A., Where it passes abruptly from 
the one to the other. 

THY amoKemevny| ‘which ts stored 
up. Itis the Oncavpos év ovpave of 
the Gospels (Matt. vi. 20, 21, Luke xii. 
34, XVili. 22). 

mponkxovaate] ‘of which ye were 


told in time past’ The preposition 
seems intended to contrast their 
earlier with their later lessons—the 
true Gospel of Epaphras with the false 
gospel of their recent teachers (see 
the next note). The expression would 
gain force, if we might suppose that 
the heretical teachers obscured or 
perverted the doctrine of the resur- 
rection (comp. 2 Tim. ii. 18); and their 
speculative tenets were not unlikely 
to lead to such a result. But this is 
not necessary; for under any circum- 
stances the false doctrine, as leading 
them astray, tended to cheat them of 
their hope; see ver. 23. The common 
interpretations, which explain zpo- as 
meaning either ‘before its fulfilment’ 
or ‘before my writing to you, seem 
neither so natural in themselves nor 
so appropriate to the context. 

ths dAnOeias Tod evayyeNiov] ‘the 
truth of the Gospel,’ i.e. the true and 
genuine Gospel as taught by Epaphras, 
and not the spurious substitute of 
these later pretenders: comp. ver. 6 
ev adnOcia. See also Gal. ii. 5, 14, 
where a similar contrast is implied in 
the use of 7 adnOeia rod evayyeXiov. 

6. tod mapovros eis tyas| ‘which 
reached you.’ The expression zapei- 
var ets is not uncommon in classical 
writers ; comp. mapeiva: mpos in Acts 
xii. 20, Gal. iv. 18, 20. So also evpe- 
Onvar eis (Acts vill. 40), yevéoOa «is 
(eg. Acts xxv. 15), and even etva 
eis (Luke xi. 7). See Winer § l. p. 
516 sq. 

ev mavtt tT Koop@] For a similar 
hyperbole see Rom. i. 8 €v dA\@ TO 
Koop ; comp. I Thess. i. 8, 2 Cor. ii. 14, 
€v mavtit rom. More lurks under these 
wordsthan appears on the surface. The 
true Gospel, the Apostle seems to say, 
proclaims its truth by its universality. 
The false gospels are the outgrowths 


I. 6] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


135 


, \ > , \ Vee C20 om 
KapTropopoupevoy Kat avEavomevor, Ka@ws Kal év ULL, 
> ie € / > / \ > / \ , = 
ap NS NMEQAS NKOVOATE Kal ETEYVWTE THY Yap Tov 


of local circumstances, of special idio- 
synecrasies; the true Gospel is the 
same everywhere. The false gospels 
address themselves to limited circles ; 
the true Gospel proclaims itself boldly 
throughout the world. Heresies are 
at best ethnic: truth is essentially 
catholic. See ver. 23 4) weraxivovpevor 
aro ths éAmidos tod evayyeXlov od 
jkovoare, TOU Knpvxbévros ev magn 
KTLOEL TH VITO TOY OUpavor. 

eotly kaprropopovpevor] ‘is constantly 
bearing fruit. The fruit, which the 
Gospel bears without fail in all soils 
and under every climate, is its cre- 
dential, its verification, as against the 
pretensions of spurious counterfeits. 
The substantive verb should here be 
taken with the participle, so as to 
express continuity of present action ; 
as in 2 Cor. ix. 12 od pdvoy éoriv mpoca- 
vamAnpovoak.t.r., Phil. ii. 26 émuroddy 
nv. It is less common in St Paul 
than in some of the Canonical writers, 
e.g. St Mark and St Luke; but pro- 
bably only because he deals less in 
narrative. 

Of the middle xapmrogopeiaGa no 
other instance has been found. The 
voice is partially illustrated by codw- 
vopopetcOa, odnpopopeicbat, rupma- 
vopopeia Oa, though, as involving a 
different sense of -popeiaOa: ‘to wear,’ 
these words are not exact parallels. 
Here the use of the middle is the 
more marked, inasmuch as the active 
occurs just below (ver. 10) in the 
same connexion, kaprogopodrres kal 
avéavouevor. This fact however points 
to the force of the word here. The 
middle is intensive, the active exten- 
sive. The middle denotes the inhefent 
energy, the active the external diffu- 
sion. The Gospel is essentially a re- 
productive organism, a plant whose 
‘seed is in itself.’ For this ‘dynamic’ 
middle see Moulton’s note on Winer 
§ xxxviii. p. 319. 


kai av£avoyevov] The Gospel is not 
like those plants which exhaust them- 
selves in bearing fruit and wither 
away. The external growth keeps 
pace with the reproductive energy. 
While xaprodopovpmevov describes the 
inner working, avfavopyevoy gives the 
outward extension of the Gospel. The 
words kal av€avduevov are not found 
in the received text, but the autho- 
rity in their favour is overwhelming. 

kaos Kat ev vuiv] The comparison 
is thus doubled back, as it were, on 
itself. 'This irregularity disappears in 
the received text, kal éoriv kaprodo- 
povpevov Kaas kal ev vyiv, where the 
insertion of kai before xcaprodopotpe- 
voy straightens the construction. For 
a similar irregularity see 1 Thess. iv. 
I mapaxadotpev ev Kupio “Inaod iva, 
Kaas mapedaBere trap’ nua To mas Sei 
Upas mepimarew Kat apécxew Ocd, kabas 
kal mepuraretre, iva mepioceunre paAXor, 
where again the received text simpli- 
fies the construction, though in a dif- 
ferent way, by omitting the first fva 
and the words xadés kai mepurareire. 
In both cases the explanation of the 
irregularity is much the same; the 
clause reciprocating the comparison 
(here xaOds kai év dpiv, there xabds 
kat mepiraretre) ig an afterthought 
springing out of the Apostle’s anxiety 
not to withhold praise where praise 
can be given. 

For the appearance of xat in both 
members of the comparison, cal év 
mavtt TO KOoH®...Kabos Kal, comp. 
Rom. i. 13 kal év viv Kadds Kal év rois 
Aourots €Oveowv ; and in the reversed 
order below, iii. 13 KaOds kai 6 Kvpios 
€xapicaro vpty, odtws Kal vpeis (with 
the note): see also Winer liii. p. 549 
(ed. Moulton). The correlation of the 
clauses is thus rendered closer, and 
the comparison emphasized. 

nkovaate kal ereyvwre] The accusa- 
tive is governed by both verbs equally, 


136 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[2738 


~ > , A , A od ~~ 
Beov év aAnOeia, Txabws éuabere do “Enadpa tov 
> Co / € > / ’ \ € \ e - 
ayanntTov cuvdovAou Huey, Os €oTW TITTOS UTED Nov 
/ land lod ¢ 4 rd Chen \ lod 
OiaKovos TOU XpicTov, °6 Kal onrwoas Huy Thy Vue 


/ / 
AYATNHY EV TVEUUATL. 


‘Ye were instructed in and fully ap- 
prehended the grace of God. For 
this sense of dxovew see below, ver. 
23. For emywodcoxew as denoting ‘ad- 
vanced knowledge, thorough apprecia- 
tion,’ see the note on ériyvaots, ver. 9. 

THY xapwv Tov Geov] St Paul’s syno- 
nyme for the Gospel. In Acis xx. 24 
he describes it as his mission to preach 
TO evayyéAtoy THS YapLTos Tov Ceod. 
The true Gospel as taught by Epa- 
phras was an offer of free grace, a 
message from God; the false gospel, 
as superposed by the heretical teach- 
ers, was a code of rigorous prohibitions, 
a system of human devising. It was 
not xapis but doypara (ii. 14); not row 
Gcod but Tod Kocpou, Tov avOperep (ii. 
8, 20,22). For God’s power and good- 
ness it substituted self-mortification 
and self-exaltation. The Gospel is 
called 7 xapis rod Ocod again in 2 Cor. 
Vi. I, viii. 9, with reference to the same 
leading characteristic which the Apo- 
stle delights to dwell upon (e.g. Rom. 
ili, 24, v. 15, Eph. ii. 5, 8), and which 
he here tacitly contrasts with the doc- 
trine of the later intruders. The false 
teachers of Colossze, like those of Ga- 
latia, would lead their hearers dOerety 
THY xXaptv Tou Geov (Gal. ii. 21) ; to ac- 
cept their doctrine was éxmimrewy ris 
xaptros (Gal. v. 4). 

ev ddnOeia] i.e. ‘in its genuine sim- 
plicity, without adulteration’: see the 
note on tH dAnOeias Tod evayyeXiov, 
ver. 5. 

7. Kalas euabete| Seven as ye were 
instructed in it, the clause being an 
explanation of the preceding év dX\n- 
Ocia 3} comp. ii. 7 KaOads edidayOnre. 
On the insertion of xat before é€uad- 
Gere in the received text, and the con- 
sequent obscuration of the sense, see 
above, p. 29 sq. The insertion how- 


ever was very natural, inasmuch as 
ka@os xat is an ordinary collocation 
oi particles and has occurred twice in 
the preceding verse. 

’"Eradpa| On thenoticesof Epaphras, 
and on his work as the evangelist 
of the Colossians see above, p. 29 8q., 
p- 34 sq., and the note on iv. 12. 

cvvdovdov| Seeiv. 7. The word does 
not occur elsewhere in St Paul. 

vmép nuov| As the evangelist of 
Colossze, Epaphras had represented 
St Paul there and preached in his 
stead ; see above, p. 30. The other 
reading vmép tuev might be interpret- 
ed in two ways: either (1) It might 
describe the personal ministrations of 
Epzphras to St Paul as the represen- 
tative of the Colossians (see a similar 
case in Phil. ii. 25, iv. 18), and go it 
might be compared with Philem. 13 
iva Umép gov pot dtakov7; but this in- 
terpretation is hardly consistent with 
Tov Xpiarov. Or (2) It might refer to 
the preaching of Epaphras for the 
good of thé Colossians; but the na- 
tural construction in this case would 
hardly be umép vay (of which there is 
no direct example), but either vpadv 
(Rom. xv. 8) or vpiv (1 Pet. i. 12). 
The balance of external authority 
however ig against it. Partly by 
the accidental interchange of similar 
sounds, partly by the recurrence of 
vmép Upov in the context (vv. 3, 9), and 
partly also from ignorance of the his- 
torical circumstances, judy would read- 
ily be substituted for judy. See the 
detached note on various readings. 

8. o kai dnA@oas] ‘ As he preached 
to you from us, so also he brought 
back to us from you the tidings, etc.’ 

év mvevpatt| To be connected with 
THY vpoav ayarnyv. ‘The fruit of the 
Spirit is love, Gal. v. 22. For the 


I. 9} 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


137 


9A \ ~ A) te _ Chee Be et ay ¢ , ? / ? 
ta@ TOVTO KQL NMELS, ap NS 1] MEAS NKOVTAMEV, OV 
, A rf cand , \ > / e/ 
mavomeba UiTEp UUWY TPOTEVYKOMEVOL KAL ALTOUMEVOL iva 
(Be \ , lon / > ~ 3 
mAnpwOnTe THY ET LY VO OLY TOU GeAnpatos auTOU €V 


omission of the article, ry ev rvevpare, 
see the note on ver. 4. 

g—14. ‘ Hearing then that ye thus 
abound in works of faith and love, 
we on our part have not ceased, from 
the day when we received the happy 
tidings, to pray on your behalf. And 
this is the purport of our petitions ; 
that ye may grow more and more in 
knowledge, till ye attain to the perfect 
understanding of God’s will, being en- 
dowed with all wisdom to apprehend 
lis verities and all intelligence to 
follow His processes, living in the 
mind of the Spirit—to the end that 
knowledge may manifest itself, in 
practice, that your conduct in life may 
be worthy of your profession in the 
Lord, so as in all ways to win for you 
the gracious favour of God your King. 
Thus, while ye bear fruit in every 
good work, ye will also grow as the 
tree grows, being watered and re- 
reshed by this knowledge, as by the 
dew of heaven: thus ye will be 
strengthened in all strength, according 
to that power which centres in and 
spreads from His glorious manifesia- 
tion of Himself, and nerved to all 
endurance under aifiliction and all 
long-suffering under provocation, not 
only without complaining, but even 
with joy: thus finally '(for this is the 
crown of all), so rejoicing ye will pour 
forth your thanksgiving to the Uni- 
versal Father, who prepared and fitted 
us all—you and us alike—to take pos- 
session of the portion which His good- 
ness has allotted to us among the 
saints in the kingdom of light. Yea, 
by a strong arm He rescued us from 
the lawless tyranny of Darkness, re- 
moved us from the land of our bond- 
age, and settled us as free citizens in 
our new and glorious home, where His 
Son, the offspring and the representa- 


tive of His love, is King; even the 
same, who paid our ransom and thus 
procured our redemption from cap- 
tivity—our redemption, which (be 
assured) is nothing else than the re- 
mission of our sins,’ 

9. Awa troito] ‘for this cause,’ i.e. 
‘by reason of your progressive faith 
and love,’ referring not solely to 6 kai 
dndosas x.t-A. but to the whole of 
the preceding description. For d:a 
TovTo Kal muets in an exactly similar 
connexion, see 1 Thess. li. 13; comp. 
Ephes. i. 15 ua rovro kayo x.7.A. In 
all these cases the xai denotes the 
response of the Apostle’s personal 
feeling to the favourable character 
of the news; ‘we on our part.’ This 
idea of correspondence is still further 
emphasized by the repetition of the 
same words: kat év vpiv ad’ js jucpas 
nxovoare (ver. 6), Kal nueis ad’ ns jue- 
pas nkovoaper (ver. 9). 

kal airovpevor] The words have an 
exact parallel in Mark xi. 24 (as cor- 
rectly read) mavra 60a mpocedxeobe 
kal aircioe. 

iva] With words like rpocevyecOa, 
airetoGcu, etc., the earlier and stronger 
force of iva, implying design, glides 
imperceptibly into its later and weaker 
use, signifying merely purport or re- 
sult, so that the two are hardly sepa- _ 
rable, unless one or other is directly 
indicated by something in the con- 
text. Sec the notes on Phil.i. 9, and 
comp. Winer § xliy. p. 420 sq. 

Thy éertyveow] A favourite wordin the 
later epistles of St Paul; see the note 
on Phil.i.9. In all the four epistles 
of the first Roman captivity it is an 
elementin the Apostle’s opening prayer 
forhis correspondents’ well-being (Phil. 
i. 9, Ephes. i. 17, Philem. 6, and here). 
The greater stress whichis thus laid on 
the contemplative aspects of the Gospel 


138 


, a 
racy copia Kai cuveoet TvEevUaTIKN, 
é 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[I. 10 


°TENLTATHO AL 


a , > Cad , > A 
aElws Tov Kuptou els macav aperKeav: €v TavTt Epyw 


may be explained partly by St Paul’s 
personal circumstances, partly by the 
requirements of the Church. His en- 
forced retirement and comparative 
leisure would lead his own thoughts 
in this direction, while at the same 
time the fresh dangers threatening the 
truth from the side of mystic specu- 
lation required to be confronted by 
an exposition of the Gospel from a 
corresponding point of view. 

The compound ériyvwors is an ad- 
vance upon yvdous, denoting a larger 
and more thorough knowledge. So 
Chrysostom here, ¢yywre, dda Sei te 
kal emtyvavae Comp. Justin Mart. 
Dial. 3, p. 221 A, 4 mapéxovoa avrav 
tov avOpariver kai Tav Ociwv yvaotr, 
érevra Ths ToUT@Y Gevornros Kat dixato- 
cvvns emiyvaoty. So too St Paul 
himself contrasts ywodckew,yveorts, with 
émuywacke, eriyvoots, as the par- 
tial with the complete, in two pas- 
sages, Rom. i. 21, 28, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. 
With this last passage (apre ywooko 
€k pepous, Tore O€ emiyvedcopuat) com- 
pare Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 17, p. 369, 
mapa tav ‘EBpaikeay mpopnrav pépn 
tis dAnOeias ov Kar’ émiyvaotv da- 
Bovres, where kar ériyywow is com- 
monly but wrongly translated ‘without 
proper recognition’ (comp. Tatian ad 
Grec. 40}. Hence also ériyvaars is 
used especially of the knowledge of 
God and of Christ, as being the per- 
fection of knowledge : e.g. Prov. ii. 5, 
Hos. iv. 1, vi. 6, Ephes. i. 17, iv. 13, 
2 Pet. i. 2, 8, ii. 20, Clem. Alex. Pad. 
TD, p87 3: 

copia kal ovvecer] ‘wisdom and in- 
telligence. The two words are fre- 
quently found together: e.g. Exod. 
xxxi. 3, Deut. iv. 6, 1 Chron. xxii. 12, 
2 Chron. 1:10) 89), [sy x8 25 xxi 14, 
Dan. ii. 20, Baruch iii. 23, Cor. i. 19, 
Clem. Rom. 32. So too aodot xai 
cuveroi, Proy. xvi. 21, Matt. xi. 25, 
and elsewhere. In the parallel pas- 


sage, Eph. i. 8, the words are év racy 
copia kai ppovnoet, and the substitu- 
tion of dpovnais for cvvecis there is 
instructive. The three words are 
mentioned together, Arist. Lith. Nic. 
i. 13, as constituting the intellectual 
(Scavontikat) Virtues. Sodia is mental 
excellence in its highest and fullest 
sense ; Arist. Eth. Nic. vi. 7 7 axpt- 
Beotatn Tey émioTnpav...womep Kepa- 
Ajy exovea emioTHn Tey TYyLwTaTev 
(see Waitz on Arist. Organ. II. p. 295 
sq.), Cicero de Off. i. 43 ‘ princeps om- 
nium virtutum,’ Clem. Alex. Ped. ii. 2, 
p. 181, reeia...€umepikaBovoa Ta dda. 
The Stoic definition of codia, as ém- 
oTnpn Oeiwv kai dvOpwmivey kal tav 
Tovtav airiay, is repeated by various 
writers: e.g. Cic. de Off. ii. 5, Philo 
Congr. erud. grat. 14, p. 530, [J oseph. ] 
Macc. 2, Clem. Alex. Peed. ii. 2, p. 181, 
Strom. i. 5, p. 333, Orig. c. Cels. iii. 72, 
Aristob. in Eus, Prep. Ev. xiii. 12, 
p. 667. And the glorification of copia 
by heathen writers was even sur- 
passed by its apotheosis in the Pro- 
verbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon. 
While codia ‘wisdom’ is thus primary 
and absolute (2th. Nic. vi. 7 7 povov 
Ta €k TOY apxev eidévat GANG Kal Tept 
Tas apxas adAnbevewv), both aivects ‘in- 
telligence’ and qpovnots ‘prudence’ 
are derivative and special (Eth. Nic 
Vi. 12 Tdv eo yar@y Kal Tov Kab’ ExacTor). 
They are both applications of cod¢ia 
to details, but they work on different 
lines; for, while cuveows is critical, 
dporvnots is practical; while civeois 
apprehends the bearings of things, 
pornos suggests lines of action: see 
Arist. Hih. Nic. vi. 11 7 wey yap ppo- 
vnows emUTaKTeKT €ori...4 dé ovve- 
ows xpirixyn. For civeois see 2 Tim. 
ii. 7 voes & A€ya, Swoet yap go o Ku- 
pios cvveotv ev macw. This relation 
of copia to civeors explains why in 
almost every case copia (codos) pre- 
cedes auveois (cuveros), where they 


Par] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


139 


~ ~~ A / rad > 
dyalw KapropopovyTes Kal avEavomevor TH émiyveoes 
= a 5 , , l J \ 
Tou Qecou' “év macy duvamer Suvamovpevot KaTa TO 


are found together, and also why in 
Baruch iii. 23 of ék(yrnrat ris cuve- 
cews, oOdov 5é€ godias ovK eyvwray, We 
find cvvecrs implying a tentative, par- 
tial, approach to copia. The relation 
of copia to dpovyors will be considered 
. More at length in the note on tho 
parallel passage, Ephes. i. 8. 

mvevparikn| The word is emphatic 
from its position. The false teachers 
also offered a codia, but it had only 
a show of wisdom (ii. 23); it was an 
empty counterfeit calling itself phiio- 
sophy (ii. 8); it was the offspring of 
vanity nurtured by the mind of the jlesh 
(ii. 18). See 2 Cor. i. 12 ov ev codia 
gapx«y, Where a similar contrast is 
implied, and 1 Cor. i. 20, ii. 5, 6, 13, 
iii. 19, where it is directly expressed 
by codia rod Koopov, copia avéparrar, 
copia Tov aiavos TovTov, avOpamivn co- 
dia, ete. 

10. mepimatnoa afios x7.A.] Sor 
Thess. ii. 12, Ephes. iv. 1; comp. Phil. 
i.27. The infinitive here denotes the 
consequence (not necessarily the pur- 
pose) of the spiritual enlightenment 
described in iva mAnpwOire k.7.d.; See 
Winer § xliv. p. 399 sq. With the 
received text mepimarica vpas afios 
«7A. the connexion might be doubtful; 
but this reading is condemned by ex- 
ternal evidence. The emphasis of the 
sentence would-be marred by the inser- 
tion of duds. The end ofall knowledge, 
the Apostle would say, is conduct. 

tov Kupiov] i.e. ‘of Christ.’ In 1 
Thess. ii. 12 indeed we have zepura- 
Teiv dkiws Tov Gcod; but St Paul’s com- 
mon, and apparently universal, usage 
requires us to understand 6 Kupuos of 
Christ. 

dpéoxecay] i.e. ‘to please God in all 
‘ways’; comp. I Thess. iv. I més dei 
vpas Tepumareiv Kal apéokew Oecd. AS 
this word was commonly used to de- 
scribe the proper attitude of men to- 
wards God, the addition of rod G¢cod 


would not be necessary: Philo Quis 
rer. div. her. 24 (I. p. 490) &s da7ode- 
Xopevov (Tod Geod) tas Wuyijs éxovolov 
dpeokeias, de Abrah. 25 (I. p. 20) 
Tas mpos apéokevay oppas, de Vict. OF. 
8 (IL p. 257) dua macdy tévae ray eis 
dpéckeray 6Oav, with other passages 
quoted by Loesner. Otherwise it is 
used especially of ingratiating oneself 
with a sovereign or potentate, e.g. 
Polyb. vi. 2. 12; and perhaps in the 
higher connexion, in which it occurs 
in the text, the idea of a king is still 
prominent, as e.g. Philo de Mund. 
Op. 50 (I. p. 34) mavra kal déyew Kat 
mparrew éomovdatev eis dpécketav Tod 
matpos kat Bacitéws. Towards men 
this complaisance is always dangerous 
and most commonly vicious; hence 
dpéokeca is a bad quality in Aristotle 
[?] (Zth. Lud. ii. 3 rd Niav mpds 7Sorvqv) 
as also in Theophrastus (Char. 5 ovk 
ext t@ Bedtiorm ndovijs mapackevacri- 
ky), but towards the King of kings no 
obsequiousness can be excessive. The 
dpéoxeca of Aristotle and Theophrastus 
presents the same moral contrast to 
the dpécxera here, as avOpemois ape- 
okey tO Ge@ apéoxew in such passages 
as 1 Thess. ii. 4, Gal. i. 10. Opposed 
to the dpéoxeca commended here is dv- 
Oowrapéckeca condemned below, iii. 22. 

ev tavtt k.T.A.] i.e. ‘not only showing 
the fruits of your faith before men 
(Matt. vii. 16), but yourselves growing 
meanwhile in moral stature (Eph.iv.13).’ 

TH émtyvdce| ‘by the knowledge,’ 
The other readings, é€v rn éemvyvocet, 
eis THY emiyywow, are unsuccessful 
attempts to define the construction. 
The simple instrumental dative re- 
presents the knowledge of God as the 
dew or the rain which nurtures the 
growth of the plant; Deut. xxxii. 2, 
Hos. xiv. 5. 

11, Svvapovpevor] A word found 
more than once in the Greek versions 
of the Old Testament, Ps. lxvii (Ixviii), 


140 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


(ta 


, ~~ 7 PY co ) ro A 4 
KpaTos Ths Oo€Ns avTOU Els TaTAY VromoMnY Kal faKpo- 


Oupiav wera yapas: 


> ~ a \ ae 
™ €UXAOLO- TOUTES TW TATPL TW LKa~ 
v4 é 


12. 7@ lkavdoarvrt uas. 


29 (LXx), Eccles. x. 10 (Lxx), Dan. ix. 
27 (Theod.), Ps. Ixiv (Ixv). 4 (Aq.), Job 
xxxvi. 9 (Aq.), but not occurring else- 
where in the New Testament, except 
in Heb. xi. 34 and as a various read- 
ing in Ephes. vi. 10. The compound 
evduvanovv however appears several 
times in St Paul and elsewhere. 

kata TO kpatos| The power commu- 
nicated to the faithful corresponds to, 
and is a function of, the Divine might 
whence it comes. Unlike dvvayis or 
ioxvs, the word xparos in the New 
Testament is applied solely to God. 

ths Sofns avrov| The ‘glory’ here, 
as frequently, stands for the majesty 
or the power or the goodness of God, 
as manifested to men; e.g. Eph. i. 6, 
12, 17, iii. 16; comp. ver. 27, below. 
The do€a, the bright light over the 
mercy-seat (Rom. ix. 4), was a symbol 
of such manifestations. God’s revela- 
tion of Himself to us, however this 
revelation may be made, is the one 
source of all our highest Bbrene uh 
(kara TO Kparos kK.T.A.). 

UTopovny kal paxpoOupiay | ‘endurance 
and long-suffering” The two words 
occur in the same context in 2 Cor. vi. 
4, 6, 2 Tim. iii. 10, James v. 10,11, Clem. 
Rom. 58 (64), Ign. Ephes. 3. They 
are distinguished in Trench Synon, 
§ lili. p. 184 sq. The difference of 
meaning is best seen in their opposites, 
While vmoporn is the temper which 
does not easily suceumb under suffer- 
ing, paxpoOvpia is the self-restraint 
which does not hastily retaliate a 
wrong. The one is opposed to cow- 
ardice or despondency, the other to 
wrath or revenge (Proy. xv. 18, xvi. 32; 
see also the note on iii. 12). While 
vronovy is closely allied to hope (1 
Thess. i. 3), paxpodvpia is commonly 
connected with mercy (e.g. Exod. xxxiv. 
6). This distinction however, though 
it applies generally, is not true with- 


out exception. Thus in Is. lvii. 15 
paxpoOupia is opposed to odAryorvyia, 
where we should rather have expected 
Vropovy ; and paxpobupeiv is used simi- 
larly in James v. 7. 

peta xapas| So James i. 2, 3, racav 
Xapay jnynoacbe...0rav metpacpois Tre- 
pimréonre Trouidots, yudoxovtes OTL TO 
Soxipwoy v UL@Y THs TicTEws karepyaterat 
Umopovny K.T.A.: comp. I Pet. iv. 13, 
and see below i. 24. This parallel 
points tu the proper connexion of 
Hera yapas, which should be attached 
to the preceding words. On the other 
hand some would connect it with ev- 
xaptorovrtes for the sake of preserving 
the balance of the three clauses, év 
Tavtt epym dyabd Kaptopopovyres, €v 
warn Suvduer Suvapovpevor, peta xapas 
evxaptotobyres; and this seems to be 
favoured by Phil. i. 4 pera Xapas THY 
dénow toovpevos: but when it is so 
connected, the emphatic position of 
peta vanes cannot be explained; nor 
indeed would these words be needed 
at all, for evxapioria is in itself an act 
of rejoicing. 

12. evxapiorovvres] Most naturally 
coordinated with the preceding parti- 
ciples and referred to the Colossians. 
The duty of thanksgiving is more than 
once enforced upon them below, ii. 7, 
iii. 17, iv. 2; comp. 1 Thess. v.18. On 
the other hand the first person 7pas, 
which follows, has led others to con- 
nect evyapiorodvres with the primary 
verb of the sentence, ov mavopeda ver. 
9. But, even if the reading nuas be 
preferred to vpuas (which is perhaps 
doubtful), the sudden transition from 
the second to the first person is quite 
after St Paul’s manner (see the note 
On il. 13, 14, ocuvefworoingey wpas... 
xXapicapevos nyty), and cannot create 
any difficulty. 

T@ ikavdcaytt] ‘who made us com- 
petent’; comp. 2 Cor. ili. 6. On the 


1.33] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


141 


/ e lal > A Vi - / ~ 3 
YWOAVYTL Huas Els THY Mepioa Tov KAHoN0U THY aylwy éy 
cr , ray 5) , ¢ ~ > cond / = 
TW put: 30s €pvcaTO Mas EK TIS €£ovalas TOU 


various readings see the detached 
note. 

THY pepioa TOV KAnpov] ‘the parcel 
of the lot, ‘the portion which consists 
in the lot,’ rod xAnpov being the 
genitive of apposition: see Winer § lix. 
p. 666sq., and comp. Ps. xv (xvi). 5 
Kupios pepis tis KAnpovopias pov. In 
Acts viii. 21 pepis and xAnpos are co- 
ordinated; in Gen. xxxi. 14, Num. 
XVili. 20, Is. lvii. 6, pepis and KAnpo- 
vouia. The inheritance of Canaan, the 
allotment of the promised land, here 
presents an analogy to, and supplies 
a metaphor for, the higher hopes of 
the new dispensation, as in Heb. iii. 
7—iv. 11. See also below, iii. 24 ryv 
dyrarddootv Tis kAnpovopias,and Ephes. 
i. 18. St Chrysostom writes, dia ri 
KAjpov Kadei; Secxvis ote ovdels amd 
KaropOwparev oikei@y Baothelas TUyXa- 
vet, referring to Luke xvii. 10. It is 
not won by us, but allotted to us. 

évt@ deri] Best taken with the 
expression tiv pepida «.7.A. For the 
omission of the definite article, [rj] 
ev TO pari, see above, vv. 2, 4,8. The 
portion of the saints is situated in the 
kingdom of light. For the whole con- 
text compare St Paul’s narrative in 
Acts xxvi. 18 rod émotpepa amo 
oKxoTtovs eis Pas kai this eEovcias 
Tov Sarava emt Tov Gedy, Tod AaPetv 
avrovs Gdeoty duaptriay Kal KAHpov 
€v toils nytacpevors, where all the 
ideas and many of the expressions 
recur. See also Acts xx. 32, in another 
of St Paul’slater speeches. As a clas- 
sical parallel, Plato Resp. vii. p. 518 A, 
éx te datos eis okoTos peOiorapevov 
kai €k oxorous eis pas, is quoted. 

13. ‘We were slaves in the land of 
darkness. God rescued us from this 
thraldom. He transplanted us thence, 
and settled us as free colonists and 
citizens in the kingdom of His Son, in 
the realms of light.’ 


épvcato] ‘rescued, delivered us’ by 
His strong arm, as a mighty conquer- 
or: comp. ii. 15 OptauBevoas. On the 
form épvcaro see A. Buttmann, p. 29: 
comp. Clem. Rom. 55, and see the 
note on ¢£epiCwcer, tb. 6. 

e£ovoias| Here ‘arbitrary power, ty- 
ranny.’ The word é£ovcia properly sig- 
nifies ‘liberty of action’ (¢£eo71), and 
thence, like the corresponding Eng- 
lish word ‘license,'inyolves two second- 
ary ideas, of which either may be so 
prominent as to eclipse the other; 
(1) ‘authority, ‘delegated power’ (e.g. 
Luke xx. 2); or (2) ‘tyranny, ‘law- 
lessness,’ ‘unrestrained or arbitrary 
power.’ For this second sense comp. 
e.g. Demosth. #. LZ. p. 428 rhv ayav 
Tavtnv e&ovoiav, Xenoph. Hiero 5 
Tis eis TO mapov e€ovaias évexa (speak- 
ing of tyrants), Plut. Vit. Zum. 13 dvd- 
yoyo tais eovoias Kat padakol trais 
diairas, Vit. Alex. 33 rhv é&ovoiav 
kal Tov Gykov Tijs ’AeEavdpovu Surdpeas, 
Herodian ii. 4 xaOaipeow ris dvérov 
e€ovoias. This latter idea of a capri- 
cious unruly rule is prominent here. 
The expression 7 ¢£ovcia rod oxdrovs * 
occurs also in Luke xxii. 53, where 
again the idea of disorder is involved. 
The transference from darkness to 
light is here represented as a trans- 
ference from an arbitrary tyranny, an 
efovcia, to a well-ordered sovereignty, 
a Baoweia. This seems also to be 
St Chrysostom’s idea; for he explains 
ths e€ovolas by tis tupavvidos, adding 
XaAeTov kat TO amas eivat dd TO dt0- 
Bow ro dé Kal per eéovoias, todro 
xaherorepov. 

peréotncev] ‘removed, when they 
were baptized, when they accepted 
Christ. The image of peréorncer is 
supplied by the wholesale transporta- 
tion of peoples (dvacrarovs or dyva- 
oraorous roceiv), Of which the history 
of oriental monarchies supplied so 


142 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[i..23 


yA > \ , ~ eon a 
OKOTOUS, Kal METECTHOEV Els THV Bacirelav TOV VLOU THS 


many exampies. See Joseph. At. ix. 
II, I Tovs olxntopas aiypaderioas 
petéeotnoev els THY avTov Pacueiay, 
speaking of Tiglath-Pileser and the 
Transjordanic tribes. 

tov viod| Not of inferior angels, as 
the false teachers would have it (ii. 18), 
but of His own Son. The same con- 
trast between a dispensation of angels 
and a dispensation of the Son un- 
derlies the words here, which is ex- 
plicitly brought out in Heb. i. 1—ii. 8; 
see especially i. 2 éhaAnoev nyiv ev vid, 
compared with ii, 5 ov yap ayyéAo.s 
Uméra€ey THY oikovperny THY wéeAAOVEAD. 
Severianus has rightly caught the idea 
underlying rod viod here; vd tov 
kAnpovopoy €opev, OVX Vid Tovs oikéras. 

THs ayanns avtov | ‘of His love” As 
love is the essence of the Father(1 Joh. 
iv. 8, 16), so is it also of the Son. The 
mission of the Son is the revelation of 
the Father’s love; for as He is the 
povoyervns, the Father’s love is per- 
tectly represented in Him (see 1 Joh. 
iv. 9). St Augustine has rightly in- 
terpreted St Paul’s words here, de 
Trin. xv. 19 (VIII. p. 993) ‘ Caritas 
quippe Patris...nihil est quam ejus 
ipsa natura atque substantia...ac per 
hoc filius caritatis ejus nullus est alius 
quam qui de ejus substantia est geni- 
tus.’ See also Orig. c. Cels. v.11. hus 
these words are intimately connected 
with the expressions which follow, 
eikav ToD Geod Tod doparov (ver. 15), 
and év airg evSoxnoevy wav 75 T)1- 
pepa karotkjoa (ver. 19). The loose 
interpretation, which makes rod viod 
Tis ayamns equivalent to rod viod rod 
jyarnpévov, destroys the whole force 
of the expression. 

In the preceding verses we have a 
striking illustration of St Paul’s teach- 
ing in two important respects. First. 
The reign of Christ has already begun. 
His kingdom is a present kingdom. 
Whatever therefore is essential in the 
kingdom of Christ must be capable of 


realisation now. There may be some 
exceptional manifestation in the world 
to come, but this cannot alter its in- 
herent character. In other words the 
sovereignty of Christ is essentially a 
moral and spiritual sovereignty, which 
has begun now and will only be per- 
fected hereafter. Secondly. Corre- 
sponding to this, and equally signi- 
ficant, is his language in speaking of 
individual Christians. He regards 
them as already rescued from the 
power of darkness, as already put in 
possession of their inheritance as 
saints. They are potentially saved, 
because the knowledge of God is itself 
salvation, and this knowledge is within 
their reach. Such is St Paul’s con- 
stant mode of speaking. He uses the 
language not of exclusion, but of com- 
prehension. He prefers to dwell on 
their potential advantages, rather than 
on their actual attainments. He hopes 
to make them saints by dwelling on 
their calling as saints. See especially 
Ephes. ii. 6 cvvryerpev kat ovverdbtcer 
ev Tols erovpaviars €v Xptata@ Inodk.r.A. 

14. €youev] For the reading éo- 
xouev; Which is possibly correct here, 
and which carries out the idea en- 
forced in the last note, see the de- 
tached note on the various readings. 
In the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 7, 
there is the same variation of reading. 

THY atod’tpwcw] ‘ransom, redemp- 
tion. The image of a captive and en- 
slaved people is still continued: Philo 
Omn. prob. lib. 17 (I. p. 463) aixpa- 
Awros arnyOn...dmoyvovs amohUTpacw, 
Plut. Vit. Pomp. 24 modewy aixpa- 
Adrav droduvtpeces. The metaphor 
however has changed from the victor 
who rescues the captive by force ofarms 
(ver. 13 épvcaro) to the philanthropist 
who releases him by the payment of a 
ransom. The clause which follows in 
the received text, dia rod aiyaros av- 
rov, is interpolated from the parallel 
passage, Ephes. i. 7. 


I. 14] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


143 


> , > lad 142 oor \ ? t 4 
ayanns avTov, “év w EXouevy THY aTOAUTPWOWW, THY 


aperw TWY auapTiOV 


14. & @ Ecxopmer. 


Thy apeow Tov duaptioay] So in the 
parallel passage,Ephes. i. 7 the Apo- 
stle defines rv dmodvTpwow as TH 
apeow tév mapartwparev. May not 
this studied precision point to some 
false conception of dmoAvrpwois put 
forward by the heretical teachers ? 
Later Gnostics certainly perverted the 
meaning of the term, applying it to 
their own formularies of initiation. 
This is related of the Marcosians by 
Irenzeus i. 13. 6 d1a tH drodvrpwow 
dxpatntovs Kai dopatous yiverOa Te 
Kpitn K.T.A. L 21. I doot yap elce 
TavTNS THS yropns pvoTaywyol, Tooav- 
rat kat dmoAutpwcets, 1b. § 4 eivar de 
TeAciav droAUTpwow avryy Thy emiyve- 
aw Tod dppytov peyéOous (with the 
whole context), and Hippolytus Her. 
Vi. 41 A€yovol re hory dppyre, émert- 
Oévres Xeipa TH THY arod’Tpwoty da- 
Bovtt x.T.A. (comp. ix. 13). In sup- 
port of their nomenclature they per- 
verted such passages as the text, Iren. 
i. 21. 2 rov IlatAov pntas ackover 
thy ev Xpiore@ Inoov arodvtpwow mod- 
Aakis pepnvuxeva, It seems not im- 
probable that the communication of 
similar mystical secrets, perhaps con- 
nected with their angelology (ii. 18), 
was put forward by these Colossian 
false teachers as an doAvtpacts. Com- 
pare the words in the baptismal for- 
mula of the Marcosians as given in 
Iren. i. 21. 3 (comp. Theodt. Her. 
Fab. i. 9) eis evwow kal drodvtpwow kal 
kowaviay Tov Suvapewy, where the last 
words (which have been differently 
interpreted) must surely mean ‘com- 
munion with the (spiritual) powers.’ 
Thus it is a parallel to eis Avtpacw 
ayyedcxynv, Which appears in an alter- 
native formula of these heretics given 
likewise by Irenzeus in the context; 
for this latter is explained in Clem. 
Alex. Exc. Theod. p. 974, eis AUTpwow 


dyyeAikyy, touréoTw, fy Kal ayyedoe 
éxovow. Any direct historical con- 
nexion between the Colossian heretics 
and these later Gnostics of the Valen- 
tinian school is very improbable ; but 
the passages quoted will serve to show 
how a false idea of dwoAvrpwors would 
naturally be associated with an eso- 
teric doctrine of angelic powers. See 
the note on i. 28 iva mapactyocoper 
mavta avOpwzov TEedeov. - 

15 sq. In the passage which fol- 
lows St Paul defines the Person of 
Christ, claiming for Him the absolute 
supremacy, 

(1) In relation to the Universe, the 

Natural Creation (vv. 15—17); 

(2) In relation to the Church, the 

new Moral Creation (ver. 18); 
and he then combines the two, iva 
yérntat €v waatv avros Tpwrevav, CX- 
plaining this twofold sovereignty by the 
absolute indwelling of the pleroma in 
Christ, and showing how, as a conse- 
quence, the reconciliation and har- 
mony of all things must be etected 
in Him (vv. 19, 20). 

As the idea of the Zogos underlies 
the whole of this passage, though the 
term itself does not appear, a few 
words explanatory of this term will be 
necessary by way of preface. The 
word Aoyos then, denoting both ‘resz- 
son’ and ‘speech,’ was a philosophical 
term adopted by Alexandrian Juda- 
ism before St Paul wrote, to express 
the manifestation of the Unseen God, 
the Absolute Being, in the creation 
and government of the World. It 
included all modes by which God 
makes Himself known to man. As 
His reason, it denoted His purpose 
or design; as His speech, it implied 
His revelation. Whether this Adyos 
was conceived merely as the divine 
energy personified, or whether the 


144 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[I. 15 


an ~ a , 7 
58s éoTw Elkay TOU QOEov TOU copaToU, TEPWTOTOKOS 


conception took a more concrete form, 
I need not stop now to enquire ; but 
I hope to give a fuller account of the 
matter ina later volume. It is suf- 
ficient for the understanding of what 
follows to say that Christian teachers, 
when they adopted this term, exalted 
and fixed its meaning by attaching 
to it two precise and definite ideas : 
(1) ‘The Word is a Divine Person,’ 
é hoyos Av mpos Tov Oecd Kal Ceds iy 
6 Adyos ; and (2) ‘The Word became 
incarnate in Jesus Christ,’ o Aoyos 
capé eyévero. Itis obvious that these 
two propositions must have altered 
materially the significance of all tho 
subordinate terms connected with the 
idea of the Acyos; and that therefore 
their use in Alexandrian writers, such 
as Philo, cannot be taken to dejine, 
though it may be brought to ilus- 
trate, their meaning in St Paul and 
St John. With ‘these cautions the 
Alexandrian phraseology, as a pro- 
vidential preparation for the teaching 
of the Gospel, will afford important 
aid in the understanding of the Apo- 
stolic writings. 

~ 15—17. ‘He is the perfect image, 
the visible representation, of the un- 
seen God. He is the Firstborn, the 
absolute Heir of the Father, begotten 
before the ages; the Lord of the 
Universe by virtue of primogeniture, 
and by virtue also of creative agency. 
For in and through Him the whole 
world was created, things in heaven 
and things on earth, things visible 
to the outward eye and things cog- 
nisable by the inward perception. His 
supremacy is absolute and universal. 
All powers in heaven and earth are 
subject to Him. This subjection ex- 
tends even to the most exalted and 
most potent of angelic beings, whether 
they be called Thrones or Domina- 
tions or Princedoms or Powers, or 
whatever title of dignity men may 
confer upon them. Yes: He is first 
and He is last. Through Him, as the 


mediatorial Word, the universe has 
been created ; and unto Him, as the 
final goal, it is tending. + In Him is) 
no before or after. He is pre-existent) 
and self-existent before all the worlds.| 
And in Him, as the binding and sus- | 
taining power, universal nature co-, 
heres and consists,’ 

I5. ds eorw«r.A.] The Person of 
Christ is described first in relation- 
more especially to Deity, as eikay rot 
@cov tov doparov, and secondly in- 
relation more especially to created 
things, aS mpwtorokos macns KTicews. 
The fundamental conception of the) 
Logos involves the idea of mediation 
between God and creation. A per- 
verted view respecting the nature of 
the mediation between the two lay, 
as we have seen, at the root of the 
heretical teaching at Coloss (p. 34, 
p. IOI 8q., p. 115 sq.), and required to 
be met by the trno doctrine of Christ 
as the Eternal Loges. 

cixwy| Sthe image. This expres- 
sion is used repeatedly by.Philo, asa 
description of the Logos; de Mund. 
Op. 8 (1. p. 6) Tov ddparoy Kai vonrov 
Ociov Doyov eixova Reyer Ccov, de 
Confus. ling. 20 (I. p. 419) tHy eikova 
avrov, Tov ‘epdrarov Aoyor, 2b. 8 28 
(Tip. 42 7) Tis aidlov eikovos avTov )o- 
you Tov ieporarov kt.A., de Profug. 
19 (I. p. 561) 0 Umepava TOUT@Y Aoyos 
@cios...aUTos eikav vmapxov Ocov, de 
Monarch. ii. 5 (11. p. 225) Adyos dé 
€or eikav Geod dv od avpmas oO kO- 
apos €Onutoupyeiro, de Somn. i. At 
(I. p. 656), ete. For the use which 
Philo made of the text Gen. i. 26, 27, 
kat eikova jeTEpav, KaT ecikova Qecod, 
see the note on iii. 10. Still earlier 
than Philo, before the idea of the Xo- 
yos had assumed such a definite form, 
the term was used of the Divine codia 
personified in Wisd. vii. 26 admavyaopa 
yap €or ards aidiov...cat eikav THs 
adyaOotnros avrod. St Paul himself 
applies the term to our Lord in’ an 
earlier epistle, 2 Cor. iv. 4 ras dd&ys 


I. 15] 


rod Xpicrov Os €otTw eixdy Tov Oeod 
(comp. iii. 18 rv avrny eikova pera- 
poppovpeba). Closely allied to eixov 
also is yapaxtnp, which appears in the 
same connexion in Heb. i. 3 dv dmrav- 
yaopa ths Sofns Kal xapaxtyp THs vro- 
ordcews avrod, a passage illustrated 
by Philo de Plant. 5 (1. p. 332) odpa- 
yidt Geod Hs 6 yapaxtnp éorw aidios 
Aoyos. See also Phil. ii. 6 ev poppy 
Gcov vrapyear. 

Beyond the very obvious notion of 
likeness, the word eixwy involves two 
other ideas ; 

(a) Representation, In this re- 
spect it is allied to Xapakr7p, and dif- 
fers from cpoiwya. In opoiwua the 
resemblance may be accidental, as 
one egg is like another; but elkoy 
implies an archetype of which it is a 
copy, as Greg. Naz. Orat. 30 (I. p. 554) 
SAYS avTn yap elkovos dios pipnua 
etvat TOU apxerumov. So too Io. Da- 
masc. de Imag. i. 9 (1. p. 311) eixav 
€or opolopa xapaxtnpifoy To 
mpwtotumoyv; comp. Philo de Mund. 
Op. 23 (1. p. 16). On this difference 
see Trench WN. 7. Synon. § xv. p. 47. 
The eixay might be the result of direct 
imitation (pinrixy) like the head of 
a sovereign on a coin, or it might be 
due to natural causes (pvorx7) like 
the parental features in the child, 
but in any case it was derived from 
its prototype: see Basil. de Spir. 
Sanct. 18 § 45 (m1. p. 38). The word 
itself however does not necessarily 
imply perfect representation. Thus 
man is said to be the image of God; 
1 Cor. xi. 7 eixev kat d6£a cod vrap- 
xov, Clem. Rom. 33 avOperoy...tijs 
éavTod eixovos xapaxtypa. Thus again 
an early Judeo-Christian writer so 
designates the duly appointed bishop, 
as the representative of the Divine aul- 
thority ; Clem. Hom. iii. 62 os eixdva 
\Gcod mpotiuavras. The idea of per- 
fection does not lie in the word itself, 
but_must_be sought from the. context 
(e.g. wav ro mAjnpwpa ver. 19). The 
use which was made of this expression, 
and especially of this passage, in the 


COL. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


145 


Christological controversies of the 
fourth and fifth centuries may be seen 
from the patristic quotations i in Petay, 
Theol. Dogm. de Trin, ii. 11. 9 8q., 
vi. 5. 6. 

(2) Manifestation. This idea comes 
from the implied contrast to rod do- 
parov Geov. St Chrysostom indeed 
maintains the direct opposite, arguing 
that, as the archetype is invisible, so 
the image must be invisible also, 7 
Tov doparov eixay Kat avr7 doparos Kal 
dpoiws ddparos. So too Hilary C. 
Const. Imp. 21 (11. p. 378) ‘uti imago 
invisibilis Dei, etiam per id quod ipse 
invisibilis est, invisibilis Dei imago 
esset.’ And this was the view of the 
Nicene’ and post-Nicene fathers gene- 
rally. Butthe underlying idea of the 
cixov, and indeed of the Aoyos gene- 
rally, is the manifestation of the hid- 
den: comp. Philo de Vit. Moys. ii. 12 
(Il. p. 144) elkav rs doparov dicews 
exparys. And adopted into Christian 
theology, the doctrine of the ddyos 
expresses this conception still more 
prominently by reason of the Incarna- 
tion; comp. Tertull. adv. Mare. v. 19 
‘Scientes filium semper retro visum, si 
quibus visus est in Dei nomine, ut 
imaginem ipsius,’ Hippol. c. Noet. 7 
dia yap THs eixovos opolas Tuyxavovons 
evyyootos o martnp vyivera, 2%. 
§ 12, 13, Orig. in Ioann. vi. § 2 (Iv. 
p. 104). Among the post-Nicene fa- 
thers too St Basil has caught the right 
idea, Fist. xxxviii. 8 (1. p. 121) 6 
Ts €ikdvos KaTavonaas KaAXos €v mepi- 
vola Tov apxeTumov yiverat...BA€meww Oia 
TOUTOU €keivoY...TO ayeévynToY KaANOs év 
TO yevrnt@ xatonrevoas. The Word, 
whether pre-incarnate or incarnate, 
is the revelation of the unseen Father : 
comp. John i, 18 Gedy ovdeis Ewpa- 
kev To@ToTe’ povoyerns Oeds, O dy eis 
Tov Kodmov TOU TaTpos, exeivos €Enyn- 
arto, XiV. 9,10 6 €wpakds ee Eo- 
pakev Tov marépa’ mas ov éyeis, 
Aci~ov nyiv, rov marépa; (compared 
with vi. 46 ovy drt Tov marépa éwpakev 
tis «.T.A.). The epithet dopdrov how- 
ever must not be confined to the ap- 


10 


146 


prehension of the bodily senses, but 
will include the cognisance of the in- 
ward eye also. 

mTperorokos maons xtioews| ‘the 
First-born of all creation” The word 
mpwrdrokos has a twofold parentage : 

(1). Like eixov it is closely con- 
nected with and taken from the Alex- 
andrian vocabulary of the Logos. The 
word however which Philo applies to 
the Adyos is not mpwrdroKxos but mpw- 
royovos: de Agric. 12 (I. p. 308) mpo- 
oTnodpevos Tov opOdv avTod hoyov mpw- 
réyovoy vidv, de Somn. i. 37 (I p. 653) 
6 mpwroyovos avrod Geios Aoyos, de 
Confus. ling. i. 28 (1. p. 427) orovda- 
(érm Koopeiabar Kata TOY mpwToyovoy 
avrod Aéyov: comp. ib. i. 14 (I. p. 414) 
rovrov mpecBvraroy viov 6 TaY ovYTaY 
dvéreihe Tratnp, ov érépwbt mpwrdoyovor 
Gvopace: and this designation mpeo- 
Buratos vids is several times applied 
to the Adyos. Again in Quis rer. div. 
her. § 24 (1 p. 489) the language of 
Exod. xiii. 2 aylacdv pot way mpwroro- 
xov mpwroyevés x.t.d. is so interpreted 
as to apply to the Divine Word. These 
appellations, ‘the first-begotten, the 
eldest son,’ are given to the Logos by 
Philo, because in his philosophy it 
includes the original conception, the 
archetypal idea, of creation, which 
was afterwards realised in the mate- 
rial world. Among the early Chris- 
tian fathers Justin Martyr again and 
again recognises the application of the 
term mpororoxos to the Word ; Apol. 
i. 23 (p. 68) Adyos avrod vmapxer Kal 
mpaororokos kat duvapmis, tb. § 46 (p. 83) 
Tov Xpiotov mpwroroKxoy Tov Ceod eivat 
.» Adyov dvTa ov Tay yévos avOpdrav 
peréeoxe, 1b. § 33 (p. 75 ©) Tov Aoyov ds 
kal mpwrToroKos T@ Ge@ eott. So too 
'heophilus ad Avtol. ii. 22 rotroy rov 
Aoyov éyevynoev mpohopixov, mpwrcro- 
kKov Tao] KTiCEws. 

(2) The word mpwrtoroxos had also 
another not less important link of 
connexion with the past. The Mes- 
sianic reference of Ps. Ixxxix. 28, éyd 
mpwrorokoy Ojaopat avrov x.T.A., SeEeMS 
to have been generally allowed. So 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[I. 15 


at least, it is interpreted by R. Nathan 
in Shemoth Rabba 19, fol. 118. 4, ‘God 
said, As I made Jacob a first-born 
(Exod. iv. 22), so also will I make 
king Messiah a first-born (Ps, lxxxix. 
28). Hence ‘the first-born’ 6 mporo- 
toxos (131) used. absolutely,became 
a recognised title of Messiah. The 
way had been paved for this Messianic 
rcference of mpardroxos by its prior 
application to the Israelites, as the 
prerogative race, Exod. iv. 22 ‘ Israel 
is my son, my first-born’: comp. Psalm. 
Salom. xviii. 4 7 madeia cov ef’ nuas 
@s viov mpwrorokoy povoyern, 4. Esdr. vi. 
58 ‘nos populus tuus, quem vocasti 
primogenitum, unigenitum, where the 
combination of the two titles applied 
in the New Testament to the Son is 
striking. Here, as elsewhere (see the 
note on Gal, iii. 16 kai trois oméppaow 
x.T.A.), the terms are transferred from 
the race to the Messiah, as the repre- 
sentative, the embodiment, of the race. 

As the Person of Christ was the 
Divine response alike to the philoso- 
phical questionings of the Alexan- 
drian Jew and to the patriotic hopes 
of the Palestinian, these two currents 
of thought meet in the term mpord- 
Toxos as applied to our Lord, who is 
both the true Logos and the true 
Messiah. or this reason, we may 
suppose, as well as for others, the 
Christian Apostles preferred zporo- 
Tokxos tO mpwroyovos, Which (as we may 
infer from Philo) was the favourite 
term with the Alexandrians, because 
the former alone would include the 
Messianic reference as well. 

The main ideas then which the word 
involves are twofold; the one more 
directly connected with the Alexan- 
drian conception of the Logos, the 
other more nearly allied to the Pales- 
tinian conception of the Messiah. 

(1) Priority to all creation, In 
other words it declares the absolute 
pre-existence of the Son. At first 
sight it might seem that Christ is 
here regarded as one, though the 
earliest, of created beings. This in- 


| Bes 


terpretation however is not required 
by the expression itself. The fathers 
of the fourth century rightly called 
attention to the fact that the Apostle 
‘writes not mporoxtictos, but mpwro- 
roxos; e.g. Basil. c. Hunom. iv (1. 
p. 292). Much earlier, in Clem. Alex. 
Exc. Theod. to (p. 970), though with- 
out any direct reference to this pas- 
sage, the povoyev)s Kat mpwrorokos is 
contrasted with the mpwroxriaro:, the 
highest order of angelic beings; and 
the word mpwroxricros occurs more 
than once elsewhere in his writings (e.g. 
Strom. y. 14, p. 699). Nor again does 
the genitive case necessarily imply that 
the mpwroroxos Himself belonged to 
the xriovs, as will be shown presently. 
‘And if this sense is not required by the 
words themselves, it is directly exclud- 
ed by the context. It is inconsistent 
alike with the universal agency in 
creation which is ascribed to Him in 
the words following, ev airé éxric6n 
ta mavra, and with the absolute pre- 
existence and self-existence which is 
claimed for Him just below, avros 
éotw mpo mavtav. We may add also 
that it is irreconcilable with other 
passages in the Apostolic writings, 
while it contradicts the fundamental 
idea of the Christian consciousness. 
More especially the description rpwrd- 
Tokos Tans kricews must be interpret- 
ed in such a way that it is not incon- 
sistent with His other title of povoye- 
yns, unicus, alone of His kind and 
therefore distinct from created things. 
The two words express the same 
eternal fact; but while povoyevns 
states it in itself, tpwrdroxos places it 
in relation to the Universe. The 
correct interpretation is supplied by 
Justin Martyr, Dial. § 100 (p. 326 
D) mpwroroxoy Tov Gcod Kal mpd mdv- 
Tov toy Kticuatov. He does not 
indeed mention this passage, but it 
was doubtless in his mind, for he else- 
where uses the very expression mpo- 
ToToKos mdons kticews, Dial. § 85 
(p. 3141 B), § 138 (p. 367 D); comp. also 
§ 84 (p. 310), where the words moo- 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


147 


TOTOKOS TOY TavTwY ToInudTwy occur. 

(2) Sovereignty over all creation. 
God’s ‘first-born’ is the natural ruler, 
the acknowledged head, of God’s 
household. The right of primogeni- 
ture appertains to Messiah over all 
created things. Thus in Ps. Ixxxix. 
28 after mpwrdroxov Onocoua avrov 
the explanation is added, vWndédv 
mapa tois Baciedow ths yijs, i.e. (as 
the original implies) ‘above all the 
kings of the earth.’ In its Messianic 
reference this secondary idea of 
sovereignty predominated in the word 
mpwroroxos, 80 that from this point of 
VieW mpwrdroxos mdons kticews would 
mean ‘Sovereign Lord over all crea- 
tion by virtue of primogeniture.’ The 
€Onkev KAnpdvopov mavrwv of the Apo- 
stolic writer (Heb. i. 2) exactly cor- 
responds to the @jcouat mpwrdroxoy 
of the Psalmist (Ixxxix. 28), and 
doubtless was tacitly intended as a 
paraphrase and application of this 
Messianic passage. So again in Heb. 
Xil. 23, €kkAnola mpororécwy, the most 
probable explanation of the word is 
that which makes it equivalent to 
‘heirs of the kingdom, all faithful 
Christians being ipso facto mpwréroxot, 
because all are kings. Nay, so com- 
pletely might this idea of dominion by 
virtue of priority eclipse the primary 
sense of the term ‘first-born’ in some 
of its uses, that it is given as a title to 
God Himself by R. Bechai on the Pen- 
tateuch, fol. 124. 4, ‘Who is primo- 
genitus mundi, dd Sy y23 siny, 
1.0 Gs €oTw mpwroroKos TOU Kéopov, a8 
it would be rendered in Greek. In this 
same work again, fol. 74. 4, Exod. xiii. 
2 is falsely interpreted so that God is 
represented as calling Himself ‘ pri- 
mogenitus’: see Schéttgen p. 922, 
For other instances of secondary uses 
of 1)33 in the Old Testament, where 
the idea of ‘priority of birth’ is over- 
shadowed by and lost in the idea of 
‘pre-eminence,’ see Job xviii. 13 ‘the 
first-born of death,’ Is. xiv. 30 ‘the 
first-born of the poor.’ 

magns kticews] ‘of all creation, 


TO =a 


148 


rather than ‘of every created thing, 
The three senses of xriovs in the New 
Testament are: (1) creation, as the 
act of creating, e.g. Rom. i. 20 amo 
kricews Koopou: (2) creation, as the 
aggregate of created things, Mark xiii. 
19 am dpyijs Ktiocws ty Exticev 6 Geds 
(where the parallel passage, Matt. 
xxiv. 21, has am dpyijs koopov), Rom. 
Viii. 22 maca 7 kriais ovoTevacer: (3) 
a creation, a single created thing, a 
creature, e.g. Rom. vili. 39 ovre tis 
riots érépa, Heb. iv. 13 ovk eorw 
kriois apavns. AS xriovs without the 
definite article is sometimes used of 
the created world generally (e.g. Mark 
xiii. 19), and indeed belongs to the 
category of anarthrous nouns like 
Koopos, yj, ovpavos, etc. (see Winer 
§ xix. p. 1498q.), it is best taken so 
here. Indeed mdons xticews, in the 
sense of mavros xtioparos, would be 
awkward in this connexion; for mpo- 
rorokos seems to require either a col- 
lective noun, or a plural wacéy tov 
xticeov. In ver. 23 the case is differ- 
ent (see the note there). The anar- 
throus aca kriois is found in Judith 
ix. 12 BaowWed mdons kTiceds cov, 
while raca 4 xriovs occurs in Judith 
xvi. 14, Mark xvi. 15, Rom. viii. 22, 
Clem. Rom. 19, Mart. Polyc. 14. For 
mas, signifying ‘all, and not ‘every, 
when attached to this class of nouns, 
see Winer § xviii. p. 137. 

The genitive case must be inter- 
preted so as to include the full mean- 
ing Of mpardroxos, as already ex- 
plained. It will therefore signify: 
‘He stands in the relation of mpwrd- 
roxos to all creation, i.e. ‘He is the 
Firstborn, and, as the Firstborn, the 
absolute Heir and sovereign Lord, of 
all creation.’, The connexion is the 
same as in the passage of R. Bechai 
already quoted, where God is called 
primogenitus mundi., Another ex- 
planation which would connect the 
genitive with the first part of the com- 
pound alone (rparo-), comparing Joh. 
i. 15, 30, mparos pov nv, unduly strains 
the grammar, while it excludes the 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[I. 15 


idea of ‘heirship, sovereignty.’ 

The history of the patristic exegesis 
of this expression is not without a pain- 
ful interest. All the fathers of the) 
second and third centuries without 
exception, so far as I have noticed, 
correctly refer it to the Eternal 
Word and not to the Incarnate Christ, | 


to the Deity and not to the hu-) _ 


manity of our Lord. So Justin Zdc., 
Theophilus Z.¢., Clement of Alexan- 
dria Exc. Theod. 7, 8, 19 (pp. 967, 
973), Tertullian adv. Prax. 7, adv. 
Mare. v. 19, Hippolytus Her. x. 33, 
Origen c. Cels. vi. 47, 63, 64, etc, in 
Loann. i. § 22 (Iv. p. 21), xix. § 5 (p. 
305), Xxviili. § 14 (p. 392), Cyprian 
Test. ii. 1, Novatian de Trin. 16, and 
the Synod of Antioch (Routh’s Rel. 
Sacr. Ul. pp. 290, 293). The Arian 
controversy however gave a _ dif- 
ferent turn to the exegesis of the 
passage. The Arians fastened upon 
the expression mpwtorokos maons KTi- 
cews, and drew from it the inference 
that the Son was a created being. 
The great use which they made of 
the text appears from the document 
in Hilary, Fragm. Hist. Op. 11 p. 
644. The right answer to this false 
interpretation we have already seen. 
Many orthodox fathers however, not 
satisfied with this, transferred the 
expression into a new sphere, and 
maintained that mpwroroxos mdons 
xticews describes the Incarnate Christ. 
By so doing they thought to cut up 
the Arian argument by the roots. As 
a consequence of this interpretation, 


they were obliged to understand the 


xriots and the xrifeo@ar in the context 
of the new spiritual creation, the 
kaw ktiots Of 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15. 
Thus interpreted, zpwroroxos maons 
ktiaews here becomes nearly equiva- 
lent to mpwrorokos ev Toddois adeddois 
in Rom. viii. 29. The arguments al- 
leged in favour of this interpretation 
are mainly twofold: (1) That, if ap- 
plied to the Divine nature, tparoroxos 
would contradict povoyerjs which else- 
where describes the nature of the 


I. 15] 


Eternai Son. But those who main- 
tained, and rightly maintained, that 
mpwrorokos (Luke ii. 7) did not neces- 
sarily imply that the Lord’s mother 
had other sons, ought not to have 
been led away by this fallacy. (2) That 
mpwroroxos in other passages (e.g. 
Rom. viii. 29, Rev. i. 5, and just be- 
low, ver. 18) is applied to the hu- 
manity of Christ. But elsewhere, in 
Heb. i. 6 drav 5€ madw eicaydyn tov 
mpwrorokov x.7.A., the term must al- 
most necessarily refer to the pre- 
existence of the Son; and moreover 
the very point of the Apostle’s lan- 
guage in the text (as will be seen pre- 
sently) is the parallelism in the two 
relations of our Lord—His relation to 
the natural creation, as the Eternal 
Word, and His relation to the spiritual 
creation, as the Head of the Church— 
so that the same word (mpardroxos 
maons KTicews Ver. 15, mpwrorokos €k 
Tav vexpav ver. 18) is studiously used of 
both. A false exegesis is sure to bring a 
nemesis on itself. Logical consistency 
required that thisinterpretation should 
be carried farther; and Marcellus, who 
was never deterred by any considera- 
tions of prudence, took this bold step. 
He extended the principle to the 
whole context, including even eixay 
Tov doparov Geov, which likewise he 
-interpreted of our Lord’s humanity. 
In this way a most important Christo- 
logical passage was transferred into 
an alien sphere; and the strongest 
argument against Arianism melted 
away in the attempt to combat Arian- 
ism on false grounds. The criticisms 
of Eusebius on Marcellus are perfectly 
just: Eccl. Theol. i. 20 (p. 96) radra 
mept THs Oeorntos Tod viov Tod Oecoi, 
Kav pr MapkédAdX@ Soxj, eipnrar’ ov yap 
mept Ths oapkos eimev Gy rocaira 6 
Geios dmooroXos x.T.A.; comp. ib. ii. 9 
(p. 67), iii. 68q. (p. 175), c. Marcell. i. 
I (p. 6), i. 2 (p. 12), ii. 3 (pp. 43, 
_ 46 8q., 48). The objections to this 
interpretation are threefold: (1) It 
disregards the history of the terms 
in their connexion with the pre- 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


149 


Christian speculations of Alexandrian 
Judaism. These however, though di- 
rectly or indirectly they were present 
to the minds of the earlier fathers 
and kept them in the right exegetical 
path, might very easily have escaped 
a writer in the fourth century. (2) It 
shatters the context. To suppose 
that such expressions as é€y avr@ e- 
kriaOn ra mavra [ra] €v Trois ovpavois Kat 
[ra] emi tis yns, or ta mwavra OC avrov 
--€kTLOTaL, OY Ta MayTa ev avT@ ouve- 
ornxev, refer to the work of the Incar- 
nation, is to strain language in a way 
which would reduce all theoiogicai 
exegesis to chaos; and yet this, as 
Marcellus truly saw, is a strictly logi- 
cal consequence of the interpretation 
which refers mpwroroxos maons kticews 
to Christ’s humanity. (3) It takes no 
account of the cosmogony and angel- 
ology of the false teachers against 
which the Apostle’s exposition here 
is directed (see above, pp. 101 8q., 
1108sq., 115 8q.). This interpretation 
is given by St Athanasius c. Arian. 
ii. 62 sq. (I. p. 4198q.) and appears 
again in Greg. Nyss. ¢. Hunom. ii. 
(II. pp. 451—453, 492), 7b. iii. (11 p. 
540—545), de Perf. (II. p. 290 8q.), 
Cyril Alex. Thes. 25, p. 236 sq., de 
Trin. Dial. iv. p. 517 8q., vi. p. 625 8q., 
Anon. Chrysost. Op. VII. p. 223, appx. 
(quoted as Chrysostom by ‘ Photius 
Bibl. 277). So too Cyril expresses 
himself at the Council of Ephesus, 
Labb. Cone. 11. p. 652 (ed. Colet). 
St Athanasius indeed does not confine 
the expression to the condescension 
(cvyxaraBaors) of the Word in the In- 
carnation, but includes also a prior 
condescension in the Creation of the 
world (see Bull Def. Fid. Nic. iii. 9 § 
I, with the remarks of Newman Select 
Treatises of S. Athanasius 1. pp. 278, 
368 sq.). This double reference how- 
ever only confuses the exegesis of 
the passage still further, while theo- 
logically it might lead to very serious 
difficulties. In another work, Expos. 
Fid. 3 (1. p. 80), he seems to take a 
truer view of its meaning. St Basil, 


150 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[I. 16 


, ; 16 </ > 3 lod aR , \ , \ 
maons KTicews’ “OTL €v avT@ exTicOy Ta TavTa, [Ta | 


who to an equally clear appreciation 
of doctrine generally unites a sounder 
exegesis than St Athanasius, while men- 
tioning the interpretation which refers 
the expression to Christ’s human na- 
ture, himself prefers explaining it 
of the Eternal Word; c. Hunom. iv. (I. 
p. 292). Of the Greek commentators 
on this passage, Chrysostom’s view is 
not clear; Severianus (Cram. Cat. p. 
303) and Theodoret understand it 
rightly of the Eternal Word ; while 
Theodore of Mopsuestia (Cram. Cat. 
pp. 306, 308, 309, Rab. Maur. Op. vI. 
p. 511 sq. ed. Migne) expresses him- 
self very strongly on the opposite 
side. Like Marcellus, he carries the 
interpretation consistently into the 
whole context, explaining ¢v avré to 
refer not to the original creation («r+ 
cis) but to the moral re-creation 
(dvaxriots), and referring eik#v to the 
Incarnation in the same way. Ata 
later date, when the pressure of an 
immediate controversy has passed 
away, the Greek writers generally 
concur in-the earlier and truer inter- 
pretation of the expression. Thus 
John Damascene (de Orthod. Fid. iv. 
8, I. p. 258sq.), Theophylact (ad loc.), 
and (cumenius (ad Joc.), all explain 
it of Christ’s Divine Nature. Among 
Latin writers there is more diver- 
sity of interpretation. While Ma- 
rius Victorinus (adv. Ariwm i. 24, p. 
1058, ed. Migne), Hilary of Poictiers 
(Tract. in ti Ps. § 28 3q., 1. p. 47 8q.; de 
Trin. viii. 50, 1. p. 248 sq.),and Hilary 
the commentator (ad loc,), take it of 
the Divine Nature, Augustine (Zzpos. 
ad Rom. 56, 11. p. 914) and Pelagius 
(ad loc.) understand it of the Incarnate 
Christ. This sketch of the history of 
the interpretation of the expression 
would not be complete without a re- 
ference to another very different ex- 
planation. Isidore of Pelusium, Epist. 
iii. 31 (p. 268), would strike out a new 
path of interpretation altogether («i 
kat Odfaui tit Kawvorépav éppnveias 


dvaréuvev odov), and for the passive 
mpwtotokos suggests reading the active 
mpwtoroxos, alluding to the use of this 
latter word in Homer (7. xvii. 5 xnrnp 
MP@TOTOKOS...0U mply eidvia TOKOLO: 
comp. Plat. Theet. 151 © womep ai 
mpwtoroxor). Thus St Paul is made 
to say that Christ mparov reroxévas, 
TOUTEOTL, TEeTOUnKEvat THY KTIOL. 

16. dru x.r.A.] We have in this sen- 
tence the justification of the title 
given to the Son in the preceding 
claus2, mpwroroKxos maons xticeas. It 
must therefore be taken to explain 
the sense in which this title is used. 
Thus connected, it shows that the 
mpatoroxos Himself is not included 
in maca xriois; for the expression 
used is not ra d\Aa or ra Aoura, but 
Ta mavta éxticOy—words which are 
absolute and comprehensive, and will 
admit no exception. 

év alta] ‘in Him, as below ver. 
17 ev avt@ ovveotnxev. For the pre- 
position comp. Acts xvii. 28 év a’r@ 
yap (apev kal kivotpeba Kai éoper. 
All the laws and purposes which 
guide the creation and government 
of the Universe reside in Him, the 
Eternal Word, as their meeting-point. 
The Apostolic doctrine of the Logos 
teaches us to regard the Eternal 
Word as holding the same relation to 
the Universe which the Incarnate 
Christ holds to the Church. Hevis 
the source of its life, the centre of all 
its developments, the mainspring of 
all its motions. The use of év to 
describe His relations to the Church 
abounds in St Paul (e.g. Rom. viii, 1, 
2, Xi, 55 XVI, Fui9, Obey. Cor igo: 
iv. 15, 17, Vil. 39, xv. 18, 22, ete.), and 
more especially in the Epistles to the 
Colossians and Ephesians (e.g. below 
ii. 7, 10). In the present passage, as 
in ver. 17, the same preposition is 
applied also to His relations to the 
Universe; comp. Joh. i. 4 & atr@ 
(om 4v (more especially if we connect 
the preceding 6 yéyovey with it) 


I. 16] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


I51 


’ ~ ~ \ \ \ ~ ~ \ ¢e \ 
Ev TOLs OVPavots Kat [Ta] ETL THS YNS, TA OpaTa Kal Ta 


Thus it is part of the parallelism 
which runs through the whole pas- 
gage, and to which the occurrence of 
mperoroxos in both relations gives the 
key. TheJudzeo-Alexandrian teachers 
represented the Logos, which in their 
view was nothing more than the 
Divine mind energizing, as the rozos 
where the eternal ideas, the vonros 
xoopos, had their abode; Philo de 
Mund. Op. 4 (I. p. 4) doamep év exeivo 
vonrd, 1b. § 5 (p. 4) ovdé o ek TOY dear 
Kogpos dAAoy ay exo Tomov Tov 
Getov Aoyov Tov tatta Siaxoopncarta, 
ib. § 10 (p. 8) 6 dawpatos Kécpos... 
idpvdecis ev ro beim Noy ; and see 
especially de Migr. “Abr. 1 At Pp. 437) 
oikos ev @ Suatrara...dca Gv évOvpy- 
para Tékn, WoTEp Ev oko TO Oy Sia- 
Geis. The Apostolic teaching is an 
enlargement of this conception, inas- 
much as the Logos is no longer a 
philosophical abstraction but a Di- 
vine Person: see Hippol. Har. x 
33 airtov Tots ywvopevors Adyos Hv, ev 
éavt@ pépav ro Oédew Tov yeyevvy- 
KOTOS:..€xel €V EAUT@ Tas ev TO TarTpl 
mpoevvonbciaas ideas obev KedevovTos 
marpos yiverOar Koopov TO Kata Ev Ac- 
yos amereheiro dpécxay Geo: comp. 
Orig. in Joann. i. § 22, Iv. p. 21. 
éxtic6n| The aorist is used here; 
the perfect below. ’Exric@n describes 
the definite historical act of creation ; 
éxrucrat the continuous and present 
relations of creation to the Creator: 
comp. Joh. i. 3 xwpis avroo éyévero 
ovde €v with ib. 6 yéyovey, I Cor. ix. 22 
eyevopny trois aobeveow dobevyns with 
2. trois macw yéyova mavra, 2 Cor. xii. 
17 pn Twa oy améoradka With ver. 18 
kai ouvaméoretda Tov adeAgor, I Joh. 
iv. 9 Tov povoyernh adméaradkev 6 
Geds cis Tov Kocpov iva (nowpev SV av- 
rov with ver. 10 dre avros fyamnoey 
nas Kal dméoretXev Tov viov avrod. 
ra mavral| ‘the universe of things, 
not mavra ‘all things severally,’ but 
ra ravra ‘all things collectively.’ With 
very few exceptions, wherever this 


phrase occurs elsewhere, it stands ina 
similar connexion; see below, vv. 17, 
20, ili, 11, Rom. xi. 36, 1 Cor. viii. 6, 
X12, xls 6, av, 27,2872) Cor, vars, 
Kphici., 10, , 81, 23, civ; 10), Heb..4.3, 
ii. 8, Rev. iv. 11. Compare Rom. viii. 
32 Ta mavra juiv xapicerat, 2 Cor. iy. 
15 ta wavra Ov’ vas, With 1 Cor. iii. 
22 elre koopos...vpav ; and Phil. iii. 8 
ra mayra e(nutoOnv with Matt. xvi. 
26 éay rov Koa pov OAoy Kepdhon. Thus 
it will appear that ra ravra is nearly 
equivalent to ‘the universe.” It 
stands midway between zavra and ro 
mav.. The last however is not a scrip- 
tural phrase; for, while with ra mavra 
it involves the idea of connexion, it 
suggests also the unscriptural idea of 
self-contained unity, the great world- 
soul of the Stoic pantheist. 

év Trois ovpavois k.t.A.] This division 
of the universe is not the same with 
the following, as if [ra] év rots ovpavois 
were equivalent to ra dopara and [ra] 
émt tis yns to ra dpara. It should 
rather be compared with Gen®i, I 
éroingev 0 Oeds TOY ovpavoy Kal THY 
viv, li. I cuvereh€oOnoay 6 ovpavos kat 
1) Yi] Kal was 6 Koopos avTay, xiv. 19 
és éxrizev Tov ovpaviv kal THY iy, 
Rev. x. 6 Os €xtusev Tov ovpavoy Kai 
Ta €v avT@ kal THY ‘yhv Kal Ta ev avr. 
It is a classification by locality, as the 
other is a classification by essences. 
Heaven and earth together com- 
prehend all space; and all things 
whether material or immaterial are 
conceived for the purposes of the 
classification as having their abode in 
space. Thus the sun and the moon 
would belong to opara, but they would 
be év rois ovpavois ; while the human 
soul would be classed among dopara 
but would be regarded as emi ris yijs ; 
see below ver. 20. 

It is difficult to say whether ra...ra 
should be expunged or retained. The 
elements in the decision are; (1) The 
facility either of omission or of ad- 
dition in the first clause, owing to the 


152 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[I. 16 


ae St / Sf , ’ > 5) 
copaTa, GLan€ Eoovor (EMIS KUPLOTHTES, €lTE dpyat El TE 


termination of wavra: (2) The much 
greater authority for the omission in 
the, first clause than in the second. 
These two combined suggest that ra 
was omitted accidentally in the first 
clause, and then expunged purposely 
in the second for the sake of uni- 
formity. On the other hand there is 
(3) The possibility of insertion in both 
cases either for the sake of gram- 
matical completeness or owing to the 
parallel passages, ver. 20, Ephes. i. Io. 
On the whole the reasons for their 
omission preponderate. At all events 
we can hardly retain the one without 
the other. 

Ta opara x.t.d.] ‘Things material 
and immaterial,’ or, according to the 
language of philosophy, gawopeva and 
vovpeva: comp. Plato Phaed. 79 A 
Odpev ody, ef Bovret, Eby, Svo €tdn Tar 
Ovrwy, TO NEV OpaToy, TO Oe aeLdés, K.T.A. 

eirek.t.A.] ‘whether they be thrones 
or lordships, etc’? The subdivision is 
no longer exhaustive. The Apostle 
singles out those created beings that 
from their superior rank had been or 
might be set in rivalry with the Son. 

A comparison with the parallel 
passage Ephes. i. 21, vmepava maons 
apxjs Kat e€ovoias kat Svvapews kal 
KupLorntos Kat TavTos k.T.A., brings out 
the following points : 

(1) No stress can be laid on the 
sequence of the names, as though St 
Paul were enunciating with authority 
some precise doctrine respecting the 
grades of the celestial hierarchy. The 
names themselves are not the same 
in the two passages, While dpy7, é&- 
ovoia, Kupiorns, are common to both, 
@povos is peculiar to the one and 
dvvayis to the other. Nor again is 
there any correspondence in the se- 
quence. Neither does dvvayis take 
the place of @povos, nor do the three 
words common to both appear in the 
same order, the sequence being dpx. 
éé. [Svv.] kup. in Eph. i. 21, and [@por.] 
kup. apx. e€. here. 


(2) An expression in Eph. i. 21 
shows the Apostle’s motive in intro- 
ducing these lists of names: for he 
there adds kai mavtos dvopatos dvo- 
palouevov ov povoyv ev TO aid TovT@ 
adda kal év TH pédovtt, i.e. ‘of every 
dignity or title (whether real or imagi- 
nary) which is reverenced,’ etc.; for 
this is the force of mavros dvoparos 
ovozatouevov (see the. notes on Phil. 
ii. 9, and Eph./.c.). Hence it appears 
that in this catalogue St Paul does 
not profess to describe objective 
realities, but contents himself with 
repeating subjective opinions. He 
brushes away all these speculations 
without enquiring how much or how 
little truth there may be in them, 
because they are altogether beside 
the question. His language here 
shows the same spirit of impatience 
with this elaborate angelology, as in 
ii. 18. 

(3) Some commentators have re- 
ferred the terms used here solely 
to earthly potentates and dignities. - 
There can be little doubt however 
that their chief and primary reference 
is tc the orders of the celestial hier- 
archy, as conceived by these Gnostic 
Judaizers. This appears from the con- 
text; for the words ra dopara imme- 
diately precede this list of terms, while 
in the mention of mav ro mAnpepa 
and in other expressions the Apostle 
clearly contemplates the rivalry of 
spiritual powers with Christ. It is 
also demanded by the whole design 
and purport of the letter, which is 
written to combat the worship paid to 
angels. The names too, more especially 
Opévor, are especially connected with 
the speculations of Jewish angelology. 
But when this is granted, two questions 
still remain. First; are evil as well as 
good spirits included, demons as well 
as angels? And next; though the 
primary reference is to spiritual 
powers, is it not possible that the 
expression was intended to becompre- 


I. 16] 


hensive and to include earthly dignities 
as well? The clause added in the 
parallel passage, oJ povoy ev TO aidvt 
TovT@ «.7.A., encourages us thus to 
extend the Apostle’s meaning ; and we 
are led in the same direction by the 
comprehensive words which have pre- 
ceded here, [ra] ¢v rois ovparois 
x7.A. Nor is there anything in the 
terms themselves which bars such an 
extension; for, as will be seen, the 
combination dpxat kai éfovoia is 
applied not only to good angels but 
to bad, not only to spiritual powers 
but to earthly. Compare Ignat. 
Smyrn. 6 ra émovpana xat 7 doa trav 


>. aN ‘ cm” c , \ 
_ ayyeAwv kat ot apxovTes oparol TE Kal 


aoparot. 
Thus guided, we may paraphrase 


the Apostle’s meaning~as—follows: 
‘You dispute much about the succes- 
sive grades of angels; you distinguish 
each grade by its special title; you 
can tell how each order was generated 
from the preceding; you assign to 
each its proper degree of worship. 
Meanwhile you have ignored or you 
have degraded Christ. I tell you, it 
is not so. He is first and foremost, 
Lord of heaven and earth, far above 
all thrones or dominations, all prince- 
doms or powers, far above every 
dignity and every potentate—whether 
earthly or heavenly—whether angel 
or demon or man—that evokes your 
reverence or excites your fear.’ See 
above, pp. 103 sq. 

Jewish and Judeo-Christian specu- 
lations respecting the grades of the 
celestial hierarchy took various forms, 
In the Testaments of the Twelve 
Patriarchs (Levi 3), which as coming 


_ near to the Apostolic age supplies a 


valuable illustration (see Galatians 
p. 307 sq.), these orders are arranged 
as follows: (1) @povor, éEovcia, these 
two in the highest or seventh heaven; 
(2) of adyyedor of é€pavtes tas dmo- 
Kploets Tois ayyeAos TOU mpoowmov in 
the sixth heaven ; (3) of dyyeAa Tod 
mpoowrov in the fifth heaven; (4) of 
ayo in the fourth heaven; (5) ai duva- 


EPISTLE TO TilE COLOSSIANS. 


153 


pews tay mapepBoroy in the third 
heayen ; (6) ra mvevpara Tay eraywyav 
(i.e. of visitations, retributions) in the 
second heaven: or perhaps the denizens 
of the sixth and fifth heavens, (2) and 
(3), should be transposed. The lowest 
heaven is not peopled by any spirits. 
In Origen de Prine. i. 5. 3, vb. 1. 6. 
2, I. pp. 66, 70 (comp. i. 8. 1, 2b. p.74), 
we have five classes, which are given 
in an ascending scale in this order ; 
(1) angels (sancti angeli, ra&is dyye- 
Aiky); (2) princedoms (principatus, 
Svvapus dpyexy, dpxat); (3) powers (p9- 
testates, €€ovciar); (4) thrones (throne 
vel sedes, Opdva); (5) dominations 
(dominationes, kvupiornres); though 
elsewhere, in Joann. i. § 34, IV. p- 34, 
he seems to have a somewhat differ- 
ent classification in view. In Ephrem 
Syrus Op. Syr. I. p. 270 (where the 
translation of Benedetti is altogether 
faulty and misleading) the ranks are 
these: (1) Oeoi, Opovor, kuprotntes ; (2) 
apyayyeAot, apxat, eEovata; (3) ayyedor, 
duvapets, xepouBip, cepapip; these three 
great divisions being represented by 
the x:Alapxor, the éxarovrapxo, and the 
mevtnkovrapxot respectively in Deut. i. 
15, on which passage he is comment- 
ing. The general agreement between 
these will be seen at once. This 
grouping also seems to underlie the 
conception of Basil of Seleucia Orat. 
39 (p. 207), who mentions them in this 
order; Opovot, kupiotntes, apxai, €&- 
ovaiat, Suvapers, xepovBip, cepapip. 
On the other hand the arrangement of 
the pseudo-Dionysius, who so largely 
influenced subsequent speculations, 
is quite different and probably later 
(Dion. Areop. Op. I. p. 75, ed. Cord.); 
(1) A@povor, xepouBip, cepadip; (2) eEov- 
cial, Kuptorntes, Ouvapets; (3) ayyedor, 
dpxayysAo, apxai. But the earlier 
lists for the most part seem to 
suggest as their common foundation a 
classification in which @povot, xupidtn- 
res, belonged to the highest order, and 
dpxai, éfovaiae to the next below 
Thus it would appear that the Apo- 
stle takes as an illustration the titles 


154 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[I. 16 


ms , \ 4 ’ > a \ 5) p) \ af 
efovorat: TA TAVTA OL QUTOU Kal ELS AUTOV EKTLOTAL’ 


assigned to the two highest grades in 
a system of the celestial hierarchy 
which he found current, and which 
probably was adopted by these Gnos- 
tic Judaizers. See also the note on 
ii. 18. 

O@pdvot] In all systems alike these 
‘thrones’ belong to the highest grade 
of angelic beings, whose place is in 
the immediate presence of God. The 
meaning of the name however is 
doubtful: (1) lt may signify the oecz- 
pants of thrones which surround the 
throne of God; as in the imagery of 
Rev. iv. 4 kixAobev tov Opovov Opovat 
elxoot Teooapes (comp. Xi. 16, xx. 4). 
The imagery is there taken from the 
court of an earthly king: see Jer. lii. 
32. This is the interpretation given 
by Origen de Prine. i. 5.3 (p. 66), i. 
6. 2 (p. 70) ‘judicandi vel regendi... 
habentes officium.’ Or (2) They were 
so called, as supporting or forming 
the throne of Ged ; just as the chariot- 
seat of the Almighty is represented 
as resting on the cherubim in Ezek. 
Li2ONS 53) -xe 1 Sq, XL. 22 Ps xvii, 
1 Chron. xxviii. 18. So apparently 
Clem. Alex. Proph. Ecl. 57 (p. 1003) 
@povor av ecev...d1a 7d dvanaverOa e€v 
avtois tov @eov. From this same 
imagery of the prophet the later mys- 
ticism of the Kabbala derived its 
name ‘wheels,’ which it gave to one 
of its ten orders of Sephiroth. Adopt- 
ing this interpretation, several fathers 
identify the ‘thrones’ with the che- 
rubim: e.g. Greg. Nyss. c. Eunom. 
i (II. p. 349 sq.), Chrysost. de Incompr. 
Nat. iii. 5 (1. p. 467), Theodoret (ad 
loc.), August. in Psalm. xcviii. § 3 
(IV. p. 1061). This explanation was 
adopted also by the pseudo-Dionysius 
de Col. Hier. 7 (1. p. 80), without how- 
ever identifying them with the cheru- 
bim ; and through his writings it came 
to be generally adopted. The former 
interpretation however is more pro- 
bable; for (1) The highly symbolical 
character of the latter accords better 


with a later stage of mystic speculation, 
like the Kabbala; and (2) It seems 
best to treat Opdvor as belonging to the 
same category with xupidtnres, apxat, 
efovciat, which are concrete words 
borrowed from different grades of 
human rank and power. As implying 
regal dignity, Opovo: naturally stands 
at the head of the list. 

kuptorntes | ‘dominations, as Ephes. 
i. 21. These appear to have been re- 
garded as belonging to the first grade, 
and standing next in dignity to the 
@psyoz. This indeed would be sug- 
gested by their name. 

dpyai, efovoiac}] as Ephes. i. 21. 
These two words occur very frequently 
together. In some places they refer 
to human dignities, as Luke xii. 11, 
Tit. iii, 1 (comp. Luke xx. 20); in 
others to a spiritual hierarchy. And 
here again there are two different 
uses: sometimes they designate good 
angels, e.g. below ii. 10, Ephes. ili, 10; 
sometimes evil spirits, eg. ii. 15, 
Ephes. vi. 12: while in one passage at 
least (1 Cor. xv. 24) both may be in- 
cluded. In Rom. viii. 38 we have ap- 
xai without efovoia (except as av. 1.), 
and in I Pet. iii. 22 é€ovoiae without 
dpxai, in connexion with the angelic 
orders. 

80 avrod «.7.A.] ‘As all creation 
passed out from Him, so does it all con- 
verge again towards Him.’ For the 
combination of prepositions see Rom. 
xi. 36 €& avrod Kal dv avrov kai eis av- 
rov ramravra. Heisnot only the a but 
also the w, not only the apy7 but also 
the réAos of creation, not only the first 
but also the last in the history of 
the Universe: Rev. xxii. 13.) For 
this double relation of Christ to the 
Universe, as both the initial and the 
final cause, see Heb. ii. 10 dv ov ra 
mavra kal O: ov Ta mavra, Where dv ov 
is nearly equivalent to eis avroy of the 


text. 
In the Judaic philosophy of Alex- 
andria the preposition d:a with the 


1 a | 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


155 


> \ 7 \ , \ \ / > > lo 
Kal AUTOS ETL 100 TAVTWY, KaL Ta TWAVTA EV AUTY 


genitive was commonly used to de- 
scribe the function of the Logos in 
the creation and government of the 
world; e.g. de Cherub. 35 (I. p. 162) 
where Philo, enumerating the causes 
which combine in the work of Crea- 
tion, describes God as uf’ od, matter 
as €& od, and the Word as & ot; 
comp. de Mon. ii. 5 (I. p. 225) Novos... 
Ov? od cvpras 0 KOcpos eOnmioupyeiTo. 
The Christian Apostles accepted this 
use of dca to describe the mediatorial 
function of the Word in creation; e.g. 
John i. 3 mavta Sv avrod éyévero k.7.X., 
ib. ver. 10 6 Koopos 5: avrod eyévero, 
Heb. i. 2 8 od Kal émoinoev Tovs 
aiévas. This mediatorial function 
however has entirely changed its 
character. To the Alexandrian Jew it 
was the work of a passive tool or instru- 
ment (de Cherub. l.c. 60 ov, To épya- 
Aetov, Opyavoy...d’ ov); but to the 
Christian Apostle it represented a 
cooperating agent. Hence the Alex- 
andrian Jew frequently and consist- 
ently used the simple instrumental 
dative 6 to describe the relation of 
the Word to the Creator, e.g. Quod 
Deus immut. 12 (1. p. 281) 6 kai tov 
KOO }LOV cipydcero, Leg. All. i. 9 (1 
p. 47) TO mepipaveotar@ kal THhavye- 
ordT@ €avTov hoy@ pypare 0 Geos ap- 
porepa motel, comp. 20. iii. 31 (I. p. 106) 
6 oyos.. .@ Kadarep opyava mporyxpn- 
odpevos. This mode of speaking is not 
found in the New Testament. 

eis avrov| ‘unto Him, As of the 
Father it is said elsewhere, 1 Cor. viii. 
6 €& ob ra wavra Kal npeis eis adror, 
so here of the Son we read ra ravra 
80 avrod Kai eis adrov. All things 
must find their meeting-point, their re- 
conciliation, at length in Him from 
whom they tuok their rise—in the 
Word as the mediatorial agent, and 
through the Word in the Father as 
the primary source. The Word is 
the final cause as well as the creative 
agent of the Universe. This ultimate 
goal of the present dispensation in 


time is similarly stated in several pas- 
sages. Sometimes it is represented 
as the birth-throe and deliverance of 
all creation through Christ; as Rom. 
Vili. 19 sq. avty 7 KTiots éhevOepwOr- 
cera, Tacay KTicts...cvvwdiver. Some- 
times it is the absolute and final sub- 
jection of universal nature to Him; 
as 1 Cor. xv. 28 drav vmotayy atte 
ra wavra. Sometimes it is the recon- 
ciliation of all things through Him; as 
below, ver. 20 60 avrov dmoxarad\akat 
ta wavra. Sometimes it is the reca- 
pitulation, the gathering up in one 
head, of the Universe in Him; as 
Ephes. i. 10 dvaxedadawoacba Ta 
mavra év t@ Xpioto. The image in- 
volved in this last passage best illus- 
trates the particular expression in the 
text eis avrov éxrictat; but all alike 
enunciate the same truth in different 
terms. The Eternal Word is the goal 
of the Universe, as He was the starting- 
point. It must end in unity, as it 
proceeded from unity: and the centre 
of this unity is Christ. This expres- 
sion has no parallel, and could have 
none, in the Alexandrian phraseology 
and doctrine. 


17. Kat avros «.r.A.] ‘and HE IS 
before all things’: comp. Joh. viii. 58 
mpw ’ABpaap yeveoOa, éyo eipi (and 
perhaps also viii. 24, 28, xiii. 19). The 
imperfect nv might have sufficed 
(comp. Joh. i. 1), but the present éorw 
declares that this pre-existence is 
absolute existence. The ayToc €CTIN 
here corresponds exactly to the erw 
elimi in St John, and this again is illus- 
trated by Exod. iii.14. The verb there- 
fore is not an enclitic, but should be ac- 
centuated éoriv. See Basiladv. Zunom. 
iv (I. p. 294) 6 amcdaroXos eimay, Mavra 
d¢ avrov kal els avtov extiorat, apeirev 
eimetv, Kai avros éyéveto mpo Tavtav, 
eirav S€, Kai atros €ort mpo marvtwy, 
fderEe Tov pev del dvta thy dé kriow 
yevouernv. The avrds is as necessary 
for the completeness of the meaning, 


156 


mp4 18 \ at 
OUVEO THKEV. Kat QuTos 


as the éorw. The one emphasizes the 
personality, as the other declares the 
pre-existence. For this emphatic av- 
Tos see again ver. 18; comp. Ephes. 
ii. 14, iv. 10, 11, I Joh. ii. 2, and esp. 
Rev. Kix. I5 Kal avros mowavel...Kat 
avros watet. The other interpretation 
which explains mpd mavrev of s "_ superi- 
ority in rank, and not of priority in 
time, is untenable for several reasons. 
(1) This would most naturally be ex- 
pressed otherwise in Biblical language, 
as éml mavrov (e.g. Rom. ix. 5, Eph. iv. 
6), or vmep mavra (Eph. i. 22), or varep- 
ave tavrev (Eph. i. 21, iv. 10). (2) 
The key to the interpretation is given 
by the analogous words in the con- 
text, eSp. mpwrdrokos, VV. 15,18. (3) 
Nothing short of this declaration of 
absolute pre-existence would be ade- 
quate to introduce the statement 
which follows, cal ra mavta ev ait@ 
OUVETTNKED. 

mpo mavtav] ‘before all things.” In 
the Latin it was translated ‘ ante 
omnes, i.e. thronos, dominationes, etc. ; 
and so Tertullian adv. Mare. v. 19 
‘Qnomodo enim ante omnes, si non 
ante omnia? Quomodo ante omnia, 
si non primogeuitus conditionis ?’? But 
the neuter ra wayra, standing in the 
context before and after, requires the 
neuter here also. 

auvertnkev| ‘hold together, cohere.’ 
He is the principle of cohesion in the 
universe. He impresses upon creation 
that unity and solidarity which makes 
it a cosmos instead of a chaos. Thus 
(to take one instance) the action of 
gravitation, which keepsin their places 
things fixed and regulates the mo- 
tions of things moving, is an expres- 
sion of His mind. Similarly in Heb. 
i. 3 Christ the Logos is described as 
dépov ra marta (sustaining the Uni- 
verse) T@ pyyate ths Suvayews avrod. 
Here again the Christian Apostles 
accept the language of Alexandrian 
Judaism, which describes the Logos 
as the decpos of the Universe; e.g. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[I. 18 
éoTi 1) Kepadn TOU ow- 
Philo de Profug. 20 (I. p. 562) 6 Oo TE 


yap Tov évTos Aoyos Serpos @v TOV 
amravrav...kal uve xe Ta pep wayra 
kat odiyyet kal KoAver adta Stave Oat 
kal Staprac Ga, de Plant. 2 (1. p. 331) 
cuvvayeov Ta Hépn mayra kat opiyyov 
Seapov yap avroy appyxtov Tov mavrés 
O yevynoas emote: maTyp, Quis rer. div. 
her. 38 (I. Pp. 507) oye opiyyerat Bein” 
Ko\Xa yap €ore kat Seapos ovros Ta 
Tavra THs ovalas éxmeTAnpokws: and 
for the word itself see Quis rer. div. 
her. 12 (I. p. 481) cvvéornke kal (o- 
mupetrat mpovoia Geov, Clem. Rom. 27 
év Noy@ THs peyadkwovrns avrovd cuve- 
otnoato ta mayvra. In the same con- 
nexion ovyxeirat is used, Hcclus. xliii. 
26. The indices to Plato and Aristotle 
amply illustrate this use of cvvéornxev. 
This mode of expression was common 
with the Stoics also. 


18. ‘And not only does He hold 
this position of absolute priority and 
sovereignty over the Universe—the 
natural creation. He stands also in 
the same relation to the Church— 
the new spiritual creation. He is its 
head, and itis His body. This is His 
prerogative, because He is the source 
and the beginning of its life, being 
the First-born from the dead. Thus 
in all things—in the spiritual order as 
in the natural—in the Church as in 
the World—He is found to have the 
pre-eminence.’ 


The elevating influence of this 
teaching on the choicest spirits of the 
subapostolic age will be seen from 
a noble passage in the noblest of 
early Christian writings, Epist. ad 
Diogn. § 7 tov eyov Tov aytov...av- 
Opadmots évidpuce...ov, Kabamep av tis 
eikdoetev, dvOparots UmNpEeTHy TWA TEL- 
Was 4 ayyedov f apxovra 4 Twa Tov 
Sterovrav ra emiyeva 7 TwWa TOV TeTLo- 
TEvLEVOY Tas év ovpavois Stouxnorers, GAN 
avrov Tov Texvirny kal Sn proupyov Tov 
dhov...@ mavTa Siaréraxrac kal Bidpro- 
tat Kal vmoréraxrat, ovpavol kal Ta ev 


I. 18] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


157 


a“ ? , / , , 
MaTos, TIS €KKANoLAaS' OS EOTLY aAPXN, TPwWTOTOKOS 


Tois ovpavois, yj Kal Ta ev TH yn K.T.A. 
See the whole context. 

kat autos] ‘and He, repeated from 
'|the preceding verse, to emphasize the 
identity of the Person who unites in 
Himself these prerogatives: see on 
ver. 17, and comp. ver. 18 avros, ver. 
19 & avrov. The Creator of the 
World is also the Head of the Church. 
There is no blind ignorance, no im- 
perfect sympathy, no latent conflict, in 
the relation of the demiurgic power 
to the Gospel dispensation, as the 
heretical teachers were disposed con- 
sciously or unconsciously to assume 
(see above, p. IOI sq., p. 110 8q.), but 
an absolute unity of origin. 

n xehaadn| ‘the head, the inspiring, 
ruling, guiding, combining, sustaining 
power, the mainspring of its activity, 
the centre of its unity, and the seat 
of its life. In his earlier epistles the 
relations of the Church to Christ are 
described under the same image (I 
Cor. xii. I12—27; comp. vi. 15, X. 17, 
Rom. xii. 4 8q.); but the Apostle 
there takes as his starting-point the 
various functions of the members, and 
not, as in these later epistles, the 
originating and controling power of 
the Head. Comp. i. 24, ii. 19, Eph. 
122 AGe, al. LO, 1V..4, 02, 15 8q:5 V. 23,30. 

Tis exkAnoias| in apposition with 
Tov o@paros : Comp. i. 24 Tod owparos 
avtov, 6 €ot yn é€xxAnaia, Eph. i. 23. 

dpxn| ‘the origin, the beginning” 
The term is here applied to the In- 
carnate Christ in relation to the 
Church, because it is applicable to 
the Eternal Word in relation to the 
Universe, Rev. ili. 14 9 apy rhs kri- 
gwews Tov Geod. The parallelism of the 
two relations is kept in view through- 
,out. The word apy here involves 
two ideas: (1) Priority in time; Christ 
was the first-fruits of the dead, arapy7 

)(1 Cor. xv. 20, 23): (2) Originating 
power; Christ was also the source of 
life, Acts iii. 14 6 dpxnyos ris (wis; 
comp. Acts v. 31, Heb. ii. 10. He is 


not merely the principium princi- 
piatum but the principium princi- 
pians (see Trench E£pistles to the 
Seven Churches p. 183sq.). He rose 
first from the dead, that others might 
rise through Him. 

The word dpyn, like mpéros (seo 
the note on Phil. i. 5), being absolute 
in itself, does not require the definite 
article. Indeed the article is most 
commonly omitted where dpyy occurs 
as a predicate, as will appear from 
several examples to be gathered from 
the extracts in Plut. Mor. p. 875 sq., 
Stob. Lcl. Phys. i. 10. 128q. Comp.also 
Aristot. Met. x. 7, p. 1064, ro Oetov... 
ay ein party kal Kuptwrarn apy7j, Onatas 
in Stob. Eel. Phys. i. 2. 39 avros yap 
[eds] dpya kal mparov, Tatian. ad 
Greec. 4 Oeds...uovos dvapyos av Kab 
avros Umdpxov Tov Oh@v apxn, Clem. 
Alex. Strom. iv. 25, p. 638, 6 Qeds dé 
dvapxos, 4px TGV OXwv TavTeAys, apyfs 
mountixos, Method. de Creat. 3 (p. 100, 
ed. Jahn) maons dperis dpynv Kat wy- 


ynv ...1y7 Tov Oeov, pseudo-Dionys. : 


de Div. Nom. v.§ 6 apyn yap éott trav 
évtav, § 10 mavre@v ovv dpxi) Kal TeAev- 
Tl] TOV vT@Y O TpOwv. 

The text is read with the definite 
article, 7 apy7, in one or two excel- 
lent authorities at least; but the ob- 
vious motive which would lead a 
scribe to aim at greater distinctness 
renders the reading suspicious. 

mpwtoroxos| Comp. Rev. i. 5 6 mpo- 
TOTOKOS TOY veKpav Kal 6 Gpyov Tay 
Baowtéav ths yjs. His resurrection 
from the dead is His title to-the 
headship of the Church; for ‘the 
power of His resurrection’ (Phil. iii. 
10) is the life of the Church. Such 
passages as Gen. xlix. 3, Deut. xxi. 17, 
where the mpa@roroxos is called apyn 
réxvev and superior privileges are 
claimed for him as such, must neces- 
sarily be only very faint and partial 
illustrations of the connexion between 
apxy and mpororokos here, where the 
subject-matter and the whole context 


‘ 


158 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[T. 19 


> - o (74 ~ > 

EK TWYV VEKPW), va YEVNTAL év TAGCLV auTOoS TOWTEVWY* 
/ 2 ? lo V7 ra A , ~ 

0TL EV QUT EVOOKNTEV TAY TO TANPWMA KATOLKY- 


point toa fuller meaning of the words. 
The words mpwroroxos ek Tov vexpov 
here correspond to mpwtoroxos maons 
xtioews ver. 15,80 that the parallelism 
between Christ’s relations to the Uni- 
verse and to the Church is thus em- 
phasized. 

wa yévnra «.7.A.] As He its first 
with respect to the Universe, so it 
was ordained that He should become 
first with respect to the Church as 
well. The yévnraz here answers in a 
manner to the ¢orcev of ver.17. Thus 
€or and yévnra are contrasted as 
the absolute being and the histo- 
rical manifestation. The relation be- 
tween Christ’s headship of the Uni- 
verse by virtue of His Eternal God- 
head and His headship of the Church 
by virtue of His Incarnation and 
Passion and Resurrection is some- 
what similarly represented in Phil. ii, 
68q. ev poppy Seov Umapxov.. -poppny 
dovAov AaBay.. -VEvopevos Um Koos BEXpL 
Oavarov...640 Kal 6 Geos avtov vrepv- 
oceyv kK.7.A. 

év racw| ‘in all things, not in the 
Universe only but in the Church 
also. Kai yap, writes Theodoret, os 
Geos, mpo maytav éoTl Kal UY TO Tarpi 
€oTt, Kat os avOpwmos, mpwToToKos €k 
TOY vEXpov kal TOU Gwpatos Kepady. 
Thus ¢v racw is neuter and not mas- 
culine, as it is sometimes taken. Hi- 
ther construction is grammatically 
correct, but the context points to the 
former interpretation here; and this 
is the common use of ev maou, e.g. 
iii. 11, Eph. i. 23, Phil. iv. 12, For 
the neuter compare Plut. Mor. p. 9 
omevdovres Tovs maidas év Tact TaXLoV 
mperevoa. On the other hand in 
[Demosth.] Amat. p. 1416 xpariorov 
eivat TO mpwrevew ev aract the context 
shows that dao. is masculine. 

avros| ‘He Himself’; see the note 
ON kal avros above. 

19, 20. ‘And this absolute supre- 


macy is His, because it was the 
Father’s good pleasure that in Him 
all the plenitude of Deity should have 
its home; because He willed through 
Him to reconcile the Universe once 
more to Himself. It was God’s pur- 
pose to effect peace and harmony 
through the blood of Christ’s cross, 
and so to restore all things, whatso- 
ever and wheresoever they be, whe- 
ther on the earth or in the heavens.’ 
19. dre €v adr@ x.r.d.] The eternal 
indwelling of the Godhead explains 
the headship of the Church, not less 
than the headship of the Universe. 
The resurrection of Christ, whereby 
He became the dpy7 of the Church, 
was the result of and the testimony to 
His deity; Rom. i. 4 rod dpicbévros 
viov Gcod...€& dvacragews vexpav. 
evdoxnoev]| sc. 6 eds, the nomina- 
tive being understood; see Winer 
§ lviii. p. 655 sq., § Ixiv. p. 735 8q.; 
comp. James i. 12 (the right reading), 
iv. 6. Here the omission is the more 
easy, because evdoxia, evdoxeiv etc. (like 
Génpa), are used absolutely of God’s 
good purpose, e.g. Luke ii. 14 éy av- 
Operas evdoxias (or evdoxia), Phil. ii, 
13 Umep THs evdoxias, Clem. Rom. § 40 
Tayta Ta yivoueva ev evdoxnoer; see the 
note on Clem. Rom. §2. For the ex- 
pression generally comp. 2 Mace. xiv. 
35 ov, Kupee, evdoxnoas vaoy Tis ons 
KaTATKnVaTEDS év piv yever Oar. The 
alternative is to consider way 76 mAn- 
pwpa personified as the nominative ; 
but it is difficult to conceive St Paul 
so speaking, more especially as with 
evdoxnoev personification would sug- 
gest personality. The mAnpopa in- 
deed is personified in Clem. Alex. 
Exc. Theod. 43 (p. 979) ovvawécavros 
kal Tov m®Anp@paros, and in Iren. i. 2. 
6 BovAy pia Kal youn TO may TAnp@pa 
TOY aidvey K.T.A., 1. 12. 4 wav TO WAN 
popa nudoxnoey [80 avrod dogaaa tov 


maréoa|; but the phraseology of the 


I. 20] 


Gals 
Valentinians, to which these passages 
refer, cannot be taken as an indica- 
tion of St Paul’s usage, since their view 
of the mAjpopa was wholly different. 
A third interpretation is found in 
“ Tertullian adv. Mare. v. 19, who trans- 
lates é€v avr@ in semetipso, taking o 
Xpicros as the nominative to evddxn- 
cev: and this construction is followed 
by some modern critics. But, though 
grammatically possible, it confuses 
the theology of the passage hope- 
lessly. 

To mwAnpopal ‘the plenitude, a re- 
cognised technical term in theology, 
denoting the totality of the Divine 
powers and attributes; comp. ii. 9. 
‘see the detached note on mAnjpepa. 
On the relation of this statement to 
the speculations of the false teach- 
ers at Colossze see the introduction, 
pp. 102,112. Another interpretation, 
which explains rd wAjpwpa as refer- 
ring to the Church (comp. Ephes. i. 
22), though adopted by several fathers, 
is unsuited to the context and has 
nothing to recommend it. 

_katokjaa| ‘should have its per- 
manent abode.’ The word occurs again 
in the same connexion, ii. 9. The 
false teachers probably, like their 
later counterparts, maintained only a 
partial and transient connexion of the 
mAnpopa with the Lord. Hence St 
Paul declares in these two passages 
that it is not a mwapoixia but a caro- 
xia. The two words xarovkeiv, tapot- 
keivy, occur in the Lxx as the common 
renderings of 20’* and 11) respect- 
ively, and are distinguished as the 
permanent and the transitory; e.g. 
Gen. XXXvi. 44 (Xxxvil. I) kar@ker de 
laxoB év Th yh ob map@xnoey 6 TaTHp 
avtovd €v yn Xavaay (comp. Hos. x. 5), 
Philo Sacr. Ab. et Ca. 10 (I. p. 170 M) 6 
rois éykKuKAlots povots emavexXwv mapolKet 
copia, ov karoxei, Greg. Naz. Orat. 
xiv (L p. 271 ed. Caillau) ris rH nara 
ony Kal THY Gvw moAW; Tis mapol- 
kiav kal xatouxiay; comp. Orat. vii 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 159 


\ > > ~ > Ud \ / > 
Kat Ot avTou amokaTan\aEat Ta WavTa és 


(I. p. 200). See also the notes on 
Ephes. ii. 19, and on Clem. Rom. 1. 

20. The false teachers aimed at 
effecting a partial reconciliation be- 
tween God and man through the in- 
terposition of angelic mediators. The 
Apostle speaks of an absolute and 
complete reconciliation of universal 
nature to God, effected through the 
mediation of the Incarnate Word. 
Their mediators were ineffective, be- 
cause they were neither human nor 
divine. The true mediator must be 
both human and divine. It was 
necessary that in Him all the pleni- 
tude of the Godhead should dwell. 
It was necessary also that He should 
be born into the world and should 
suffer as a man. 

8¢ avrov] i.e. rod Xptorod, as ap- 
pears from the preceding éy avrg, 
and the following Oca rod aiparos 
Tov otavpov avtov, dv avtov. This 
expression 6.’ avrov has been already 
applied to the Preincarnate Word in 
relation to the Universe (ver. 16); it 
is now used of the Incarnate Word in 
relation to the Church. 

droxata\Aa€éa] sc. evdoxnoev 6 eds. 
The personal pronoun avrov, instead 
of the reflexive éavroy, is no real ob- 
stacle to this way of connecting the 
words (see the next note). The al- 
ternative would be to take ro mAq- 
popa as governing droxata\Aaga, but 
this mode of expression is harsh and 
improbable. 

The same double compound dzoxar- 
a\Aazcew is used below, ver. 21 and 
Ephes. ii. 16, in place of the usual xar- 
a\vaooev. It may be compared 
With droxaraoraots, Acts iii.21. Ter- 
tullian, arguing against the dualism 
of Marcion who maintained an anta- 
gonism between the demiurge and the 
Christ, lays stress on the compound, 
adv. Mare. v. 19 ‘conciliari extraneo 
possent, reconciliart vero non alii 
quam suo.” The word dmoxara\\do- 
gew corresponds to amnddorpi@uerous 


160 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[I. 21 


if ’ , es A “~ € ~ a 
avTOV, ElpyvoToinTas Ola TOU aipaTos Tov oTavpo 


a land of \ \ ~ a > - 

avTou, Ov avTou elite Ta Emi THS ys Eire TA év Tots 
~ \ ¢e ~ \ 7 > 

oupavois, “kal Usas TOTE OYTAaS amnAoTpLwMEvous Kal 


here and in Ephes. ii. 16, implying a 
restitution to a state from which they 
had fallen, or which was potentially 
theirs, or for which they were destined. 
Similarly St Augustine on Gal. iv. 5 
remarks that the word used of the 
viobecia is not accipere (AapBaveww) 
but recipere (droAapBavew). See the 
note there. 
» ra mavra] The whole universe of 
things, material as well as spiritual, 
shall be restored to harmony with 
God. How far this restoration of 
universal nature may be subjective, as 
involved in the changed perceptions 
of man thus brought into harmony 
with God, and how far it may have an 
objective and independent existence, 
it were vain to speculate. 

eis avtov] ‘to Him, i.e. ‘to Him- 
self’ The reconciliation is always 
represented as made to the Father. 
The reconciler is sometimes the Fa- 
ther Himself (2 Cor. v. 18, 19 &€k rod 
@cod tod Katuddakavros nuas éavT@ 
dia Xpicrov...Ccds Av ev Xptot@ koopoy 
kara\Adoowyv é€avt@), sometimes the 
Son (Ephes. ii. 16: comp. Rom. v. 
10, 11). Excellent reasons are given 
(Bleek Hebr. 1. p. 69, A. Buttmann 
Gramm. p. 97) for supposing that the 
reflexive pronoun éavrov etc. is never 
contracted into avrov etc. in the 
Greek Testament. But at the same 
time it is quite clear that the oblique 
cases of the personal pronoun avrds are 
there used very widely, and in cases 
where we should commonly find the 
reflexive pronoun in classical authors : 
e.g. Ephes. i. 4, 5 é&edeEaro nas... 
eivat juas aylous Kal duapous KaTEVOTLOV 
avrov...npoopicas nuas eis viobeciay 
8:4 "Inco Xpiorod eis avroyv. See 
also the instances given in A. Butt- 
mann p. 98. It would seem indeed 
that avrod etc. may be used for éav- 


tov etc. in almost every connexion, 
except where it is the direct object 
of the verb. 

eipnvorrojoas| The word occurs in 
the Lxx, Prov. x. 1o, and in Hermes 
in Stob. Ecl. Phys. xli. 45. The sub- 
stantive elpnvoroos (see Matt. v. 9) 
is found several times in classical 
writers. * 

5? avrov] The external authority 
for and against these words is nearly 
evenly balanced: but there would 
obviously be a tendency to reject 
them as superfluous. They are a re- 
sumption of the previous év avrov. 
For other examples see ii. 13 vpas, 
Rom. viii. 23 cat avroi, Gal. ii. 15, 16 
nueis, Ephes. i. 13 €v @ xal, iii, 1, 14 
rovrov yap, Where words are simi- 
larly repeated for the sake of emphasis 
or distinctness. In 2 Cor. xii. 7 there 
is a repetition of iva py vrepaipwpat, 
where again it is omitted in several 
excellent authorities. 

21—23. ‘And yetoo—ye Gentiles— 
are included in the terms of this 
peace. In times past ye had estranged 
yourselves from God. Your hearts 
were hostile to Him, while ye lived on 
in your evil deeds. But now, in 
Christ’s body, in Christ’s flesh which 
died on the Cross for your atonement, 
ye are reconciled to Him again. He 
will present you a living sacrifice, an 
acceptable offering unto Himself, free 
from blemish and free even from 
censure, that ye may stand the pierc- 
ing glance of Him whose scrutiny 
no defect can escape. But this 
can only be, if ye remain true to 
your old allegiance, if ye hold fast 
(as I trust ye are holding fast) bythe 
teaching of Epaphras, if the edifice of 
your faith is built on solid foundations 
and not reared carelessly on the sands, 
if ye suffer not yourselves to be 


i522] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


161 


4 cat , ~ ov ~ ~ A 

€xOpous TH Stavoia €v Tots Epyots Tots movnpois, vuvi dé 
‘ 

P) y a / aA \ > wn \ 

amrokaTnA\Naynte ev TW TWMUATL THS TAOKOS avTOU oa 


21. vuvt dé droxarnrAAakéev. 


shifted or shaken but rest firmly on 
the hope which ye have found in the 
Gospel—the one universal unchange- 
able Gospel, which was proclaimed to 
every creature under heaven, of which 
1 Paul, unworthy as I am, was called 
to be a minister,’ 

21. amnddorpiwpévous| ‘estranged,’ 
not ddAorpiouvs, ‘strangers’; comp. 
Ephes. ii. 12, iv. 18. See the note on 
dmoxata\\a€a, ver. 20, 

exOpovs] ‘hostile to God,’ as the 
consequence of amnAXorpiwpevovs, not 
‘hateful to God,’ as it is taken by 
some. The active rather than the 
passive sense of éyOpovs is required 
by the context, which (as commonly in 
the New Testament) speaks of the 
sinner as reconciled to God, not of 
God as reconciled to the sinner: comp. 
Rom. y. 10 ei yap €xOpot dvres xatnd- 
Aaynpev To GeO xK.7.A. It is the mind 
of man, not the mind of God, which 
must undergo a change, that a re- 
union may be effected. 

TH Stavoial ‘in your mind, intent? 
For the dative of the part affected 
compare Ephes. iv. 18 éoxorwpévor rH 
Savoia, Luke i. 51 vmepnpavous Siavoia 
kapdias avrav. So xapdia, Kxapdias, 
Matt. v. 8, xi. 29, Acts vii. 51, 2 Cor. 
ix. 7, I Thess. ii. 17; ppeoiv, 1 Cor. 
Xiv. 20, 

év tos e€pyos k.7.A.| ‘in the midst 
of, in the performance of your wicked 
works’ ; the same use of the preposi- 
tion as e.g. ii. 23, iv. 2. 

vuvi] Here, as frequently, voy 
(yuri) admits an aorist, because it de- 
notes not ‘at the present moment, 
but ‘in the present dispensation, the 
present order of things’: comp. e.g. 
ver. 26, Rom. v. 11, vii. 6, xi. 30, 31, 
xvi. 26, Ephes. ii. 13, iii: 5, 2 Tim. i. 
fo, -F Pet. aio, ii, 10,25.» In: all 
these passages there is a direct con- 
trast between the old dispensation 


COL. 


and the new, more especially as af- 
fecting the relation of the Gentiles to 
God. The aorist is found also in 
Classical writers, where a similar con- 
trast is involved; e.g. Plato Symp. 
193 A mpo Tov, womep éyw, Ev per" 
vuvi dé dia thy adcxiay Si@xioOnev vo 
Tov Oeov, Iszeus de Cleon. her. 20 rore 
pev...vuvi dé...€Bovdn dn. 
dmokxatn\Aaynre] The reasons for 
preferring this reading, though the 
direct authority for it is so slight, are 
given in the detached note on the 
various readings. But, whether dzo- 
katnAdaynte OY crroxatnAdakev be pre- 
ferred, the construction requires ex- 
planation. If doxarn\\a~ev be a- 
dopted, it is perhaps best to treat 
dé as introducing the apodosis, the 
foregoing participial clause serving as 
the protasis : ‘ And you, though ye were 
once estranged... yet now hath he 
reconciled, in which case the first 
vpas will be governed directly by dzo- 
xatmdAagev; see Winer Gramm. § liii. 
p. 553. If this construction be adopted, 
mapaotnoa vas Will describe the re- 
sult of dmoxarn\\akev, ‘so as to pre- 
sent you’; but o Geds will still be the 
nominative to dmoxarndAakev as in 
2 Cor. v. 19. If on the other hand 
drroxatn\Aaynre be taken, it is best to 
regard yvuvi 6€ dmoxarn\Aaynte as & 
direct indicative clause substituted 
for the more regular participial form 
vuvi dé amoxatadXayevras for the sake 
of greater emphasis: see the note on 
ver. 26 To drroxexpuppcvoy...vov de épa- 
vepoOn. In this case mapaotjoa will 
be governed directly by evdoxncey, 
and will itself govern vuas more dvras 
k.7.A., the second vuas being a repe- 
tition of the first; ‘And you who 
once were estranged...but now ye have 
been reconciled...to present you, I 
say, holy and without blemish’ For 
the repetition of vuas, which was 


Tol 


162 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


fieg 


o , 2 = ms Ces , \ lf 
ToU Gavatou [avrou ], TAPATTHTAL UUAS AYLOUS Kal aUw- 


7 / “~ of Le 
lous Kal dveyKANTOUS KATEVWITLOY aUTOU, Ei YE ETTIME- 
lo ff Nua ue ~ \ \ 
veTE TH TioTEL TEOEUEALWMEVOL Kal ESpaior Kal un PETAa- 


needed to disentangle the construc- 
tion, see the note on & avrov ver. 
20. j 

22. Tis capkosavrov | It has been sup- 
posed that St Paul added these words, 
which are evidentiy emphatic, with a 
polemical aim either; (1) To combat 
docetism. Of this form of error how- 
ever there is no direct evidence till a 
somewhat later date: or (2) To com- 
bat a false spiritualism which took 
offence at the doctrine of an atoning 
sacrifice. But for this purpose they 
would not have been adequate, because 
not explicitenough. Itseems simpler 
therefore to suppose that they were 
added for the sake of greater clear- 
ness, to distinguish the natural body 
of Christ intended here from the 
mystical body mentioned just above, 
ver. 18. Similarly in Ephes. ii. 14 
€v Tj capki avrod is used rather than 
€v TS oapate avrov, because copa 
occurs in the context (ver. 16) of 
Christ’s mystical body. The same 
expression, Td gdpa THs GapKos, Which 
we have here, occurs also below, ii. 
11, but with a different emphasis and 
meaning. There the emphasis is on 
To copa, the contrast lying between 
the whole body and a single member 
(see the note); whereas here ris cap- 
kos is the emphatic part of the ex- 
pression, the antithesis being between 
the material and the spiritual. Com- 
pare also Ecclus. xxiii. 16 dvépwros 
TOpVvos ev TwWpaTL TapKos avTOd. 

Marcion omitted r7s capkos as in- 
consistent with his views, and ex- 
plained ev 7r@ oodpate to mean the 
Church. Hence the comment of 
Tertullian adv. Mare. vy. 19, ‘utique 
in eo corpore, in quo mori potuit per 
carnem, mortuus est, non per eccle- 
siam sed propter ecclesiam, corpus 
commutando pro corpore, carnale pro 
spiritali’ 


mapactioa| If the construction 
which I have adopted be correct, this 
is said of God Himself, as in 2 Cor. 
iv. 14 6 é€yetpas Tov Kuptov “Incotvv Kat 
nuas ovv "Inoov éyepet kal mapaotn- 
cetciv dpiv. This construction seems 
in all respects preferable to connect- 
ing mapacrjoa directly with dmoxa- 
tnAAaynre and interpreting ‘the words, 
‘ Ye have been reconciled so that ye 
should present yourselves (dpas)...be- 
Sore Him, This latter interpretation 
leaves the kal vuas moré ovras K.T.d. 
without a government, and it gives to 
the second vyas a reflexive sense (as 
if vuas avrovs or éavrovs), which is at 
least harsh. 

duodpous] ‘without blemish, rather 
than ‘without blame,’ in the language 
of the New Testament; see the note 
on Ephes.i. 4. It is a sacrificial word, 
like réAecos, dAdKAnpos, ete. The verb 
mapiotava also is used of presenting 
a sacrifice in Rom. xii. I rapacrjoat 
Ta odpata vpaov bvoiay facay ayiay 
k.t.X.. Lev. xvi. 7 (v. 1.): comp. Luke 
i122) 

dveyxAnrovs| An advance upon aped- 
pous, ‘in whom not only no blemish 
is found, but against whom no charge 
is brought’: comp. 1 Tim. vi. 14 dome- 
Aov, averiAnpnrov. The word aveéy- 
KAnros occurs again in r Cor. i. 8, 
Yr Dimi vo, Tits 677: 

kateveriov avtov] ‘before Him, i.e. 
‘Himself, as in the parallel passage, 
Ephes. i. 4; if the construction here 
adopted be correct. For this use of 
the personal pronoun instead of the 
reflexive see the note on eis avroy, 
ver. 20. But does xarevomoy avrod 
refer to God’s future judgment or 
His present approbation? The latter 
seems more probable, both because 
the expression certainly has this 
meaning in the parallel passage, Ephes. 
i. 4, and because xarevomior, évadmor, 


Ti: 23] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


163 


, 5) \ > ? Ld fa) > / OW , 
Kiwoupevot dro THS EATiOOS TOU EVaYYENLOU OU HKOVTATE, 


a , ig , fol \ \ / fe 
Tov KnpvxGevTos Ev TAT} KTLOEL TH UTO TOY OVpavoY, Ov 


/ \ ~ / 
éyevounv éyw TlavAos dtakovos. 


katevaytt, etc., are commonly so used ; 
eg. thom. xiv. 22; 1 Cor, 1. 29, 2 
Gora 17.) ive 12s vik 12, Xi.) 19; 
etc. On the other hand, where the 
future judgment is intended, a dif- 
ferent expression is found, 2 Cor. vy. 
10 €umpoo bev rod Bnyatos rou Xptorov. 
Thus God is here regarded, not as 
the judge who tries the accused, but 
as the papooxdmos Who examines the 
victims (Polyc. PAzl. 4, see the note 
on Ephes. i. 4). Compare Heb. iv. 12, 
13, for a closely allied metaphor. The 
passage in Jude 24, orjoat xarevomuov 
ths Sons avTov dywpous ev dyad\acet, 
though perhaps referring to final ap- 
proval, is too different in expression 
to influence the interpretation of St 
Paul’s language here. 

23. et ye] On the force of these par- 
ticles see Gal. iii. 4. They express a 
pure hypothesis in themselves, but 
the indicative mood following converts 
the hypothesis into a hope. 

exipevere] ‘ye abide by, ye adhere 
to, with a dative; the common con- 
struction of émiéver in St Paul: see 
the note on Phil. i. 24. In this con- 
nexion 17 miore is perhaps ‘your 
faith, rather than ‘the faith” 

TeOepehiopevor K.7.A.] ‘built on a 
JSoundation and so firm’; not like 
the house of the foolish man in the 
parable who built ywpis Oewediov, Luke 
vi. 49. For reOewedcopévoe comp. 
Ephes. iii. 17. The consequence of re- 
Oepedtopevor is ESpaior: Clem. Rom. 33 
HS pacev emt tov dopady tov idiov 
Bovdjparos Oepediov, The words 
édpaios, édpatw, etc., are not uncom- 
monly applied to buildings, e.g. édpai- 
opa I Tim. iii. 15. Comp. Ign. Ephes. 
10 vpeis ESpaios rH wicoret. 

By petaxwovpevar| ‘not constantly 
shifting, a present tense; the same 
idea as éSpaior expressed from the ne- 
gative side, as in 1 Cor. xv. 58 éSpaio 


yiveo€e, aueraxivnrot, Polye. Phil. 10 
‘firmi in fide et immutabiles,’ 

ths edmidos x.7.d.] ‘the hope held 
out by the Gospel, tov evayyediov be- 
ing a subjective genitive, as in Ephes. 
i. 18 9 €Amis ths KAjoews (comp. 
iv. 4). 

év maon KTiaer] ‘among every crea- 
ture, in fulfilment of the Lord’s last 
command, Mark xvi. 15 xnpv€are ro 
evayyédlov maon TH KTicet. Here how- 
ever the definitive article, though 
found in the received text, év macy tH 
xtioet, must be omitted in accordance 
with the best authorities. For the 
meanings of aca krioiws, maca 7 KTi- 
ows, sce the note on ver. 15. The ex- 
pression aca kriovs must not be limit- 
ed to man. The stitement is givenin 
the broadest form, all creation animate 
and inanimate being included, as in 
Rev. v. 13 m@v xtiopa...kal Ta év av- 
Tois TavtTa jKovoa A€éyovrak.t.\. For 
the hyperbole ¢v raon xrioe. compare 
I Thess. i. 8 €vravti rorm. To demand 
statistical exactness in such a context 
would be to require what is never re- 
quired in similar cases. The motive 
of the Apostle here is at once to em- 
phasize the universality of the genuine 
Gospel, which has been offered with- 
out reserve to all alike, and to appeal 
to its publicity, as the credential and 
guarantee of its truth: see the notes 
on ver. 6 év mavtl TS Koop and on 
ver. 28 mavra dvOperor. 

ov éyevopny x.t.A.] Why does St 
Paul introduce this mention of him- 
self so abruptly? His motive can 
hardly be the assertion of his Aposto- 
lic authority, for it does not appear 
that this was questioned; otherwise 
he would have declared his commis- 
sion in stronger terms. We can only 
answer that impressed with the dig- 
nity of his office, as involving the offer 
of grace to the Gentiles, he cannot 


1 a 


164 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[T.. 24 


24Nu , 2 i Gy ¢€ \ € lo \ 
UV KX aL0wW €V TOOLS TWAUHMAGLY u7Treép UMWV, Kat 


refrain from magnifying it. At the 
same time this mention enables him 
to link himself in bonds of closer sym- 
pathy with the Colossians, and he 
passes on at once to his relations with 
them: comp. Ephes. iii. 2—9, 1 Tim. 
i. 11 sq., in which latter passage the 
introduction of his own name is 
equally abrupt. 

éy® Iaddos] i.e. ‘weak and unwor- 
thy as Iam’: comp. Ephes. iil. 8 euoi 
T@ €AaXLoToTép@ TavTV aylav. 

24—27. ‘Now when I see the full 
extent of God’s mercy, now when I 
ponder over His mighty work of re- 
conciliation, I cannot choose but re- 
joice in my sufferings. Yes, I Paul 
the persecutor, I Paul the feeble and 
sinful, am permitted to supplement— 
I do not shrink from the word—to 
supplement the afflictions of Christ. 
Despite all that He underwent, He the 
Master has left something still for me 
the servant to undergo. And so my 
flesh is privileged to suffer for His 
body—His spiritual body, the Church. 
I was appointed a minister of the 
Church, a steward in God’s household, 
for this very purpose, that I might 
administer my office on your behalf, 
might dispense to you Gentiles the 
stores which His bountiful grace has 
provided. Thus I was charged to 
preach without reserve the whole 
Gospel of God, to proclaim the great 
mystery which had remained a secret 
through all the ages and all the gene- 
rations from the beginning, but which 
now in these last times was revealed 
to His holy people. For such was His 
good pleasure. God willed to make 
known to thém, in all its inexhaustible 
wealth thus displayed through the 
call of the Gentiles, the glorious reve- 
lation of this mystery—Christ not the 
Saviour of the Jews only, but Christ 
dwelling in you, Christ become to you 
the hope of glory.’ 

24. Nuv xaipw)] A sudden outburst 
of thanksgiving, that he, who was less 


than the least, who was not worthy to 
be called an Apostle, should be allowed 
to share and even to supplement the 
sufferings of Christ. The relative os, 
which is found in some authorities, is 
doubtless the repetition of the final 
syllable of d:axovos; but its insertion 
would be assisted by the anxiety of 
scribes to supply a connecting link 
between the sentences. The genuine 
reading is more characteristic of St 
Paul. The abruptness, which dis- 
penses with a connecting particle, has 
a parallel in 1 Tim. i. 12 yap eyo ro 
évSvvapacarvti pe XptorT@ k.T.A.. where 
also the common text inserts a link of 
connexion, kal ydapw é€yo «7.A. Com- 
pare also 2 Cor. vii. 9 viv xaipw, ovx 
ott K.7.A., Where again there is no con- 
necting particle. 

The thought underlying viv seems to 
be this: ‘If ever I have been disposed 
to repine at my lot, if ever I have felt 
my cross almost too heavy to bear, 
yet now—now, when I contemplate 
the lavish wealth of God’s merey— 
now when I see all the glory of bear- 
ing a part in this magnificent work— 
my sorrow is turned to joy.’ 

avravardnpa| ‘I fill up on my part, 
‘Tsupplement. The single compound 
dvam\npovv occurs several times (e.g. 
1 Cor, xiv. 16, xvi. 17, Gal. vi. 2); an- 
other double compound spocavam)n- 
pouy twice (2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9; comp, 
Wisd. xix. 4, v. 1.); but dvravamAnpooy 
only here in the Lxx or New Testa- 
ment. For this verb compare De- 
mosth. de Symm. p. 182 rovtov trav 
ovuppoptav exacrny Sieeiv KeAeVw TrevTE 
pépn kata Sddexa avdpas, avravamAn- 
povvras mpos TOY EVToperTaroy ael 
TovUs dmopwrtarous (Where rovs dmope- 
rarous Should be taken as the subject te 
dytavatAnpovrras), Dion Cass. xliv. 48 
iv dcov...evédet, TOUTO EK THS Tapa TOY 
aAXov ovvredeias avravarAnpwb7, 
Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 12 p. 878 ov- 
TOS...THY GmrooTOALKHY amovgiav 
dyravarAnpoi, Apollon. Constr. Or. i. 3 


I. 24] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


165 


advTavanAnpw Ta VOTED MATA Tov OrXiwewy Tov Xpi- 


(p. 13 8g.) 7 advt@vupla avravanAr- 
povra kal thy Oéow Tov ovopatos Kal 
Tyy tagéiv tov prparos, Ptol. Math. 
Comp. vi. 9 (I. p. 435 ed. Halma) ezei 
& 7 pév €AXelmety emolee thw aro- 
xatdotacw 1 O€ wAreovatetv xara 
Twa ovytrvxyiay nv tows kat o “In- 
mapxos avravarAnpoupevnv ws KaTa- 
vevonket k.T.A. The substantive dyra- 
vamAnpwots occurs in Diog. Laert. x. 
48. So too dvravamAndev Xen. Hell. 
ii. 4. 11, 12 Evveragavto wate éurd7- 
cat THY OOdv.-.0f O€ dro THs vAjs 
avraverAncav...rnv ddov. Compare also 
dvraucou Themist. Paraphr. Arist. 
43 B ovdev kaAvet KaTa TavTOV GAAOOi 
mov petaBaddew depa eis vowp kal 
dvravcotcba Tov ovpzravta dykoy, and 
avravicopa Joseph. Ant. xviii. 9. 7- 
The meaning of ayri in this compound 
will be plain from the passages quoted. 
It signifies that the supply comes from 
an opposite quarter to the deficiency. 
This idea is more or less definitely ex- 
pressed in the context of all the pas- 
sages, in the words which are spaced. 
The force of dvravamAnpovy in St Paul 
is often explained as denoting simply 
that the supply corresponds in ex- 
tent to the deficiency. This inter- 
pretation practically deprives dyri of 
any meaning, for avamAnpovy alone 
would denote as much. If indeed the 
supply had been the subject of the 
verb, and the sentence had run ra 
maOnpata jou avravamAnpot Ta voTn- 
pypara k.7.A., this idea might perhaps 
be reached without sacrificing the 
sense of dvri; but in such a passage 
as this, where one personal agent is 
mentioned in connexion with the sup- 
ply and another in connexion with 
the deficiency, the one forming the 
subject and the other being involved 
in the object of the verb, the dvri can 
only describe the antithesis of these 
personal agents. So interpreted, it 
is eminently expressive here. The 
point of the Apostle’s boast is that 
Christ the sinless Master should have 
left something for Paul the unworthy 


servant to suffer. The right idea has 
been seized and is well expressed by 
Photius Ampjil. 121 (1. p. 709 Migne) 
ov yap dmA\e@s dnow *AvamAnpd, GAN 
*Avravamdnpa; Tovreastw, ’Avti deamd- 
tov kat OudacKadov 6 SovAos ey@ Kai 
pa@nrns x.7.A. Similar in meaning, 
though not identical, is the expres- 
sion in 2 Cor. i. 5, where the suffer- 
ings of Christ are said to ‘overflow’ 
(weptoceverv) upon the Apostle. The 
theological difficulty which this plain 
and natural interpretation of avrava- 
mAnpody iS supposed to involve will 
be considered in the note on ray 
Odiveor. 

Ta votepnpata] ‘the things lack- 
ing.” This same word vorépnya ‘ de- 
ficiency’ occurs with dvamAnpovy 1 Cor. 
xvi, 17, Phil. ii. 30, and with mpocava- 
mAnpoov 2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9. Its direct 
opposite is mepiccevpa ‘abundance, 
superiluity,’ 2 Cor. viii. 13, 14 ; comp. 
Luke xxi. 4. Another interpretation, 
which makes vorépnya an antithesis 
to mporépnya, explaining it ‘the later’ 
as opposed to the earlier ‘sufferings 
of Christ,’ is neither supported by the 
usage of the word nor consistent with 
dytavamAnpo. 

Tov Ohiveay tod Xpicrov] ‘of the 
offictions of Christ, i.e. which Christ 
endured. This seems to be the only 
natural interpretation of the words. 
Others have explained them as mean- 
ing ‘the afflictions imposed by Christ,’ 
or ‘the afflictions endured for Christ’s 
sake” or ‘the afflictions which re- 
semble those of Christ.’ All such 
interpretations put a more or less 
forced meaning on the genitive. All 
alike ignore the meaning of dyri in 
avravarAnpo. which points to a dis- 
tinction of persons suffering. Others 
again suppose the words to describe 
St Paul’s own afflictions regarded as 
Christ’s, because Christ suffers in His 
suffering Church ; e.g. Augustine in 
Psalm. exlii. § 3 (Iv. p. 1590) ‘Patitur, 
inquit, adhuc Christus pressuram, non 
in carne sua in qua ascendit in celum, 


166 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [L235 


a > eS , A ~ , a“ c 
oTOU €V TH GapKl pou UTED TOU GWMATOS avToOU, rf 
7 e3 E , a5 > / > A fi \ \ 
€oTLy 4 EXKANT LA “ys EyEevouny Eyw OLaKOYOS KATA THV 


sed in carne mea que adhue laborat 
in terra, quoting Gal. ii. 20. This 
last is a very favourite explanation, 
and has much to recommend it. It 
cannot be charged with wresting the 
meaning of ai OAiers Tod Xpiotov. 
Moreover it harmonizes with St Paul’s 
mode of speaking elsewhere. But, like 
the others, it is open to the fatal ob- 
jection that it empties the first pre- 
position in avravarAnpo of any force. 
The:central idea in this interpretation 
is the identification of the suffering 
Apostle with the suffering Christ, 
whereas dvravarAnpo emphasizes the 
distinction between the two. It is 
therefore inconsistent with this con- 
text, however important may be the 
truth which it expresses. 

The theological difficulty, which 
these and similar explanations are in- 
tended to remove, is imaginary and 
not real. There is a sense in which 
it is quite legitimate to speak of 
Christ’s afflictions as incomplete, a 
sense in which they may be, and in- 
deed must be, supplemented. For 
the sufferings of Christ may be con- 
sidered from two different points of 
view. They are either satisfactorie 
or edificatorie. They have their 
sacrificial efficacy, and they have their 
ministerial utility. (1) From the 
former point of view the Passion of 
Christ was the one full perfect and 
sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satis- 
faction for the sins of the whole 
world, In this sense there could 
be no vorepnya of Christ’s sufferings; 
for, Christ’s sufferings being different 
in kind from those of His servants, 
the two are incommensurable. But 
in this sense the Apostle would surely 
have used some other expression 
such as rod oravpod (i. 20, Eph. ii. 
16 etc.), or rov Oavarov (i. 22, Rom. 
y. 10, Heb. ii. 14, etc.), but hardly 
tov Orivewr. Indeed Oris, ‘afilic- 


tion, is not elsewhere applied in 
the New Testament in any sense 
to Christ’s sufferings, and certainly 
would not suggest a sacrificial act. 
(2) From the latter point of view 
it is a simple matter of fact that the 
afflictions of every saint and mar- 
tyr do supplement the afflictions of 
Christ. The Church is built up by 
repeated acts of self-denial in succes- 
sive individuals and successive gene- 
rations. They continue the work which 
Christ began. They bear their part 
in the sufferings of Christ (2 Cor. i. 7 
kolvovot tav maOnyarwv, Phil. iii. 10 
kowoviav tav maOnuatov); but St Paul 
would have been the last to say that 
they bear their part in the atoning 
sacrifice of Christ. This being so, St 
Paul does not mean to say that his 
own sufferings filled up all the vo- 
repnpara, but only that they went to- 
wards filling them up. The present 
tense avravamAnpo denotes an incho- 
ate, and not a complete act. These 
votepypata Will never be fully supple- 
mented, until the struggle of the 
Church with sin and unbelief is 
brought to a close. 

Thus the idea of expiation or sa- 
tisfaction is wholly absent from this 
passage; and with it is removed the 
twofold temptation which has beset 
theologians of opposite schools. (1) 
On the one hand Protestant commen- 
tators, rightly feeling that any inter- 
pretation which infringed the com- 
pleteness of the work wrought by 
Christ?’s death must be wrong, be- 
cause it would make St Paul contra- 
dict himself on a cardinal point of his 
teaching, have been tempted to wrest 
the sense of the words. They have 
emptied avravardnpé of its proper 
force ; or they have assigned a false 
meaning to vorepnuara; or they have 
attached a non-natural sense to the 
genitive rod Xpicrod. (2) On the 


I. 26] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


167 


’ , cal ~ Q - ly > e lan A 
oikovopiay Tov Geo’ thy dobeioay mor Els UYuas, TANDWE aL 


\ , ~ la 
Tov Noyov Tov Qeou, 


other hand Romanist commentators, 
while protesting (as they had a right 
to do) against these methods of inter- 
pretation, have fallen into the opposite 
error. They have found in this pas- 
sage an assertion of the merits of the 
saints, and (as a necessary conse- 
quence) of the doctrine of indul- 
gences. They have not observed that, 
if the idea of vicarious satisfaction 
comes into the passage at all, the satis- 
faction of St Paul is represented here 
as the same in kind with the satisfac- 
tion of Christ, however different it may 
be in degree; and thus they have truly 
exposed themselves to the reproach 
which Estius indignantly repudiates 
on their behalf, ‘quasi Christus non 
satis passus sit ad redemptionem nos- 
tram, ideoque supplemento martyrum 
opus habeat; quod impium est sen- 
tire, quodque Catholicos dicere non 
minus impie calumniantur heeretici.’ 
It is no part of a commentator here 
to enquire generally whether the Ro- 
man doctrine of the satisfaction of the 
saints can in any way be reconciled 
with St Paul’s doctrine of the satis- 
faction of Christ. It is sufficient to 
say that, so far as regards this par- 
ticular passage, the Roman doctrine 
can only be imported into it at the 
cost of a contradiction to the Pauline 
doctrine. It is only fair to add how- 
ever that Hstius himself says, ‘ quse 
quidem doctrina, etsi Catholica et 
Apostolica sit, atque aliunde satis 
probetur, ex hoc tamen Apostoli loco 
nobis non videtur admodum solide 
statui posse. But Roman Catholic 
commentators generally find this 
meaning in the text, as may be seen 
from the notes of & Lapide. 

Tov gwpatros avrov| An antithesis 
of the Apostle’s own flesh and Christ’s 
body. ‘This antithetical form of ex- 
pression obliges St Paul to explain 
what he means by the body of Christ, 


\ 7 \ / 
TO MYO TNPLOY TO ATOKEKPULLLEVOY 


Oo é€oTw 1 exkAnoia; comp. ver. 18, 
Contrast the explanation in ver. 22 ep 
T® o@patt THs TapKos avrov, and sec 
the note there. 

25. THY olkovomiay K.T.A.] ‘steward- 
ship in the house of God’ The word 
oikovozia seems to have two senses: 
(1) ‘The actual administration of a 
household’; (2) ‘The office of the ad- 
ministrator” For the former mean- 
ing see the note on Ephes. i. 10; for 
the latter sense, which it has here, 
compare I Cor. ix. 17 olkovoyiay remi- 
orevpat, Luke xvi. 2—4, Isaiah xxii. 
19, 21. So the Apostles and minis- 
ters of the Church are called ofxovopor, 
1 Cor..iv, 162, Tit.ay 9 3eomip, (a et, 
iv. 10. 

eis vuas| ‘to youward,’ i.e. ‘for 
the benefit of you, the Gentiles’; eis 
vuas being connected with ry So<i- 
cay pot, a8 in Ephes. iii. 2 tiv oixovo- 
piay Ths xapitos Tov Geovd ths Soeians 
pot eis vuas; comp. Rom. xy. 16 da 
THY xapw tHv Sobeicay por va TOU 
Gcod eis TO eivat we NevToupyov Xpiarou 
"Incov eis ra €Oyn. 

mAnpacat| ‘to fulfil, i.e. ‘to preach 
fully, ‘to give its complete develop- 
ment to’; as Rom. xv. 19 ware pe 
do “IepovoaAnw Kal KUKA@ péxpe TOU 
"TAdvpikod memAnpokévar Td evayyéAvov 
tov Xpicrov. Thus ‘the word of 
God’ here is ‘the Gospel,’ as in most 
places (1 Cor. xiv. 36, 2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 
2, etc.), though not always (e.g. Rom. 
ix. 6), in St Paul, as also in the Acts. 
The other interpretation, ‘to accom- 
plish the promise of God,’ though 
suggested by such passages as I Kings 
Uy 27, mAnpwbhvat TO phya Kupiov, 
2 Chron, XXxXVi. 21 7AnpwOjvat Aoyov 
Kuplov, etc., is alien to the context 
here. 

26. to pvotnpov| This is not the 
only term borrowed from the ancient 
mysteries, which St Paul employs to 
describe the teaching of the Gospel 


168 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


|i 27 


’ A ~ Lake ¢ \ 5 \ 5 lo lanl 4 9 if. 
GTO TWY aiwywY Kal ATO TwWY YyEvewy, VvUY CE edbavepwOn 


~ Cy, ’ ~ 27 Gi 10é e ra) \ , , 
TOLS aylols QUTOU, ois 4H eAnoev O EOS YYwploal vine 


a 5 7 ~ / / a 
TO WAOUTOS TIS do€ns TOU puTTYOLOV TOUTOU EV TLS 


The word réAecov just below, ver. 28, 
seems to be an extension of the same 
metaphor. In Phil. iv. 12 again we 
have the verb pepvnuac: andin Ephes. 
i. 14 odpayitecba is perhaps an image 
derived from ‘the same source. So 
too the Ephesians are addressed as 
TlatAov ovpyvora in Ign. Ephes. 12. 
The Christian teacher is thus regarded 
as a lepodarytns (see Hpict. ili, 21. 
13 sq.) who initiates his disciples into 
the rites. There is this difference 
however ; that, whereas the heathen 
mysteries were strictly confined to a 
narrow circle, the Christian mysteries 
are freely communicated toall. There 
is therefore an intentional paradox in 
the employment of the image by St 
Paul. See the notes on mavra avOpe- 
mov TéAevov below. 

Thus the idea of secresy or reserve 
disappears when pvornpioy is adopted 
into the Christian vocabulary by St 
Paul: and the word signifies simply 
‘a truth which was once hidden but 
now is revealed,’ ‘a truth which with- 
out special revelation would have been 
unknown.’ Of the nature of the truth 
itself the word says nothing. It may 
be transcendental, incomprehensible, 
mystical, mysterious, in the modern 
sense of the term (1 Cor. xv. 51, Eph. 
v. 32): but this idea is quite acciden- 
tal, and must be gathered from the 
special circumstances of the case, for 
it cannot be inferred from the word 
itself. Hence puornpiov is almost 
universally found in connexion with 
words denoting revelation or publica- 
tion; €.g. dwoxadvmrew, amoxaduyis, 
Rom. xvi. 25, Ephes. iii. 3, 5, 2 Thess. 
ii. 7; yvopigew Rom. xvi. 26, Ephes. i. 
Q, iii. 3, 10, Vi. 19; havepody Col. iv. 3, 
Rom. xvi. 26, 1 Tim. iii. 16; Aare iv. 
3,1 Cr, i: :7,).X1¥. 25, Neyer, 1 Cor. 
5V5 1 

But the one special ‘mystery’ which 


absorbs St Paul’s thoughts in the 
Epistles to the Colossians and Ephe- 
sians is the free admission of the 
Gentiles on equal terms to the pri- 
vileges of the covenant. For this he 
is a prisoner; this he is bound to 
proclaim fearlessly (iv. 3, Ephes. vi. 
19); this, though hidden from all time, 
was communicated to him by a special 
revelation (Ephes. iii. 3 sq.); in this had 
God most signally displayed the lavish 
wealth of His goodness (ver. 27, ii. 
2 sq., Ephes. i. 6sq., iii. 8sq.). In one 
passage only throughout these two 
epistles is puvorypioy applied to any- 
thing else, Ephes. v. 32. The same 
idea of the pvornpiov appears very 
prominently also in the thanksgiving 
(added apparently later than the rest 
of the letter) at the end of the Epistle 
to the Romans, xvi. 25 sq. puarnpiov... 
eis Umakony migtews eis mavTa Ta eOvyn 
yvapiaberros. 

amw0 Tov ai¢vey x.t.A.] The pre- 
position is doubtless temporal here, 
being opposed to viv, as in the pa- 
rallel passage, Hphes. iii. 9: comp. 
Rom. Xvi. 25 Kata droxaduyww pvotn- 
plov xpovots alwviots oeavynpevon, 
1 Cor. ii. 7 Geod codiay ev pvatnpio 
THY dmOKEKpUPMEYnY TY TMpowpiaev O 
Gcds mp0 Tav aiavar. So too ar 
aiavos, Acts iii. 21, xv. 18, Ps. xcii. 
3, etc.; awd xaraBodjns Koopov, Matt. 
XM, 35, 25.134, ebe. 

tév yeveov| An aidy is made up of 
many yeveai; comp. Ephes. iii. 21 eis 
magas Tas yeveas Tov aldvos Tey aiw- 
vov, Is. li. 9 ds yeved aidvos (where 
the Hebrew has the plural ‘gene- 
rations’). Hence the order here. 
Not only was this mystery unknown 
in remote periods of antiquity, but 
even in recent generations. It came 
upon the world as a sudden surprise. 
The moment of its revelation was the 
moment of its fulfilment. 


I. 28] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


169 


af e/ . \ ~ > \ > / 
eOvertv, 0 eoTw Xpioros év vuty, n eAmis TIS do&ns: 


ee eres / 7m r / 
Ov nets KaTayyéAAopev vouleTobyvTEs TavTa avOpw- 


276 
vov dé «.7.A.] An indicative clause 
is substituted for a participial, which 
would otherwise have been more na- 
tural, for the sake of emphasizing the 
statement; comp. ver. 22 vuri dé azo- 
xatn\Aaynre, andsee Winer §1xiii. p.7 17. 

27. nbeAnoev]‘ willed, ‘was pleased, 
It was God’s grace: it was no merit 
of their own. See the note on i. I 
dca OeAnparos Geod. 

To mAovtos}] The ‘wealth of Ged,’ 
as manifested in His dispensation of 
grace, is a prominent idea in these 
epistles: comp. ii. 2, Ephes. i. 7, 18, 
iii,_8, 16; comp. Rom. xi. 33. See 
above, p. 438q. St Paul uses the 
neuter and the masculine forms in- 
differently in these epistles (e.g. ro 
mdouros Ephes. i. 7, 6 mAovros Ephes. 
i. 18), as in his other letters (e.g. ro 
mAovtos 2 Cor. vill. 2, 0 mAovTvs Rom. 
ix. 23). In most passages however 
there are various readings. On the 
neuter forms T3 mAovros, To (HAos, etc., 
see Winer § ix. p. 76. 

ths Soéns| i.e. ‘of the glorious 
manifestation” This word in Hel- 
lenistic Greek is frequently used of a 
bright light; e.g. Luke ii. 9 mepréAap- 
Wev, Acts xxii. II rod detos, I Cor. 
XV. 4I 7Alov, ceAnrns, etc., 2 Cor. ili. 7 
Tov mpocwmov [Mavocas}]. Hence it 
is applied generally to a divine mani- 
Jestation, even where there is no phy- 
sical accompaniment of light; and 
more especially to the revelation of 
God in Christ (e.g. Joh. i. 14, 2 Cor. 
iv. 4, etc.). The expression mottos 
ths Oo€ns occurs again, Rom. ix. 23, 
Ephes. i. 18, iii. 16. See above, ver. 
Ir with the note. 

ev tois €Oveow] i.e. ‘as exhibited 
among the Gentiles.” It was just 
here that this ‘mystery,’ this dispen- 
sation of grace, achieved its greatest 
triumphs and displayed its transcend- 
ant glory; paivera: pev yap kai ev ére- 
pos, writes Chrysostom, mwoAk@ b¢ 


Os é€oTW. 


mA€ov €V TOUTOLS 7) TOAAR TOU pvaTNpiov 
dofa. Here too was its wealth ; for 
it overflowed all barriers of caste or 
race. Judaism was ‘beggarly’ (Gal. 
iv. 9) in comparison, since its treasures 
sufficed only for a few. 

6 eotw] The antecedent is pro- 
bably rod paornpiov; comp. il. 2 Tov 
pvaotnpiov ToU Geov, Xpiotov ev @ ciow 
TaVTES K.T.A. 

Xpiaros ev tpiv] ‘Christ in you,’ 
ie. ‘you Gentiles’ Not Christ, but 
Christ given freely to the Gentiles, 
is the ‘mystery’ of which St Paul 
speaks; see the note on puoriprov 
above. Thus the various reading, os 
for 6, though highly supported, inter- 
feres with the sense. With Xpicros 
ev viv compare ped’ nov Geos Matt. 
i. 23. It may be a question however, 
whether ev vyuiv means ‘within you’ 
or ‘among you. ‘The former is per- 
haps the more probable interpreta- 
tion, as suggested by Rom. Viii. Io, 
2° (Cor, xii! "5, /‘Gal ive 193 “comp 
Ephes. iii. 17 xarouxjoae tov Xpiorov 
dua THs TicTews ev Tais Kapdias Umar. 

4 eAmis] Comp. I Tim. i. 2; so 7 
[kowwn | eAmis nuav Ign. Eph. 21, Magn. 
11, Philad. 5, etc., applied to our Lord. 

28, 29. ‘This Christ we, the Apo- 
stles and Evangelists, proclaim with- 
out distinction and without reserve. 
We know no restriction either of 
persons or of topics. We admonish 
every man and instruct every man. 
We initiate every man in all the mys- 
teries of wisdom. It is our single 
aim to present every man fully and 
perfectly taught in Christ. For this 
end I train myself in the discipline of 
self-denial; for this end I commit my- 
self to the arena of suffering and toil, 
putting forth in the conflict all that 
energy which He inspires, and which 
works in me so powerfully.’ 

28. nets] ‘we,’ the preachers; the 
same opposition as in 1 Cor. iy. 8, Io, 


170 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[I. 28 


Wa , , oS 3 , , 
TOY Kal OLOATKOVTES TAVTA av@ow7rov EV TaATN copia, 
e IA , af , ~ 
iva TapacThnowpev TavTa avGpwrov TeNELov ev Xpioto- 


ix. 11, 2 Cor. xiii. 5 sq., 1 Thess. ii. 
138q., etc. The Apostle hastens, as 
usual, to speak of the part which he 
was privileged to bear in this glorious 
dispensation. He is constrained to 
magnify his office. See the next note, 
and comp. ver. 23. 

ov nyeis x.7.A.] As in St Paul’s own 
language at Thessalonica, Acts xvii. 3 
dv é€y® katayyéAdko piv, and at 
Athens, Acts xvii. 23 rodro éy@ xa- 
Tayyé\Aw viv, in both which pas- 
sages, as here, emphasis is laid on the 
person of the preacher. 

voverouvtes] ‘admonishing” The 
two words vovfereiv and d.ddacKew pre- 
sent complementary aspects of the 
preacher’s duty, and are related the 
one to the other, as peravora to riotis, 
‘warning to repent, instructing in 
the faith.” For the relation ofvovOereiv 
to peravora see Plut. Mor. p. 68 éveorre 
To vouvOeroov Kal peTdvoray éprro.ovr, 
P. 452 9 vovOecia Kai 6 Woyos euroret 
peravotav kal alayvenv. The two verbs 
vovderety and didaoxew are connected 
in Plato Protag. 323 pv, Legg. 845 B, 
Plut. Mor. p. 46 (comp. p. 39), Dion 
Chrys. Or. xxxiii. p. 369; the sub- 
stantives diday7 and vovOérnois in 
Plato Resp. 399 B. Similarly vovde- 
reivy and meiOew occur together in 
Arist. Ret. ii. 18. For the two func- 
tions of the preacher’s office, cor- 
responding respectively to the two 
words, see St Paul’s own language in 
Acts xx. 21 Ovayaprupopevos...ryy eis 
Ocov perdavotay Kal miotuv eis Tov 
Kvpiov nuav Incovv. 

mavra avOpwrov| Three times re- 
peated for the sake of emphasizing 
the universality of the Gospel. This 
great truth, for which St Paul gave 
his life, was now again endangered 
by the doctrine of an intellectual ex- 
clusiveness taught by the Gnosticizers 
at Colossze, as before it had been 
endangered by the doctrine of a 


ceremonial exclusiveness taught by 
the Judaizers in Galatia. See above, 
Pp. 77, 92, 98 sq. For the repetition 
of mavra compare especially 1 Cor. x. 
I sq., Where zravtes is five times, and 
ab. xii. 29, 30, where it is seven times 
repeated ; see also Rom. ix. 6, 7, xi. 
32,1 Cor, xii..73; XilL,7, Xiv.' 31, ete 
Transcribers have been offended at 
this characteristic repetition here, and 
consequently have omitted mavra dv- 
@pwror in one place or other. 

ev taon copia] The Gnostic spoke 
of a blind faith for the many, of a 
higher yvao.s for the few. St Paul 
declares that the fullest wisdom is 
offered to all alike. The character of 
the teaching is as free from restriction, 
as are the qualifications of the recipi- 
ents, Comp. ii. 2, 3 may mAovros tis 
mAnpopopias THs ovvérews...mavTes ot 
Onoavpoi tis codias Kat yracews. 

tmapactnowpev| See the note on 
mapacTHoa, Ver. 22. 

tédetovy] So i Cor. ii. 6, 7 codiav dé 
Aadovpev ev Tois Tedelows...Ce00 Go- 
giav ev pvotnpi@ thy amrokexpuppmerny. 
In both these passages the epithet 
tédecos is probably a metaphor bor- 
rowed from the ancient mysteries, 
where it seems to have been applied 
to the fully instructed, as opposed to 
the novices: comp. Plato Phedr. 
249 O teAc€ous del TeAeTds TeAOUpevos 
TéAeos GvTws povos ylyverat...250 B, C 
eidov Te Kal €reAovvTO TeAeTaY HY Oéuts 
héyetv. pakaplorarny...wvovpevol TE Kal 
emomrevovtes ev avyn Kabapa, Symp. 
209 E Tadra,..kav ov punGeins’ ra Se 
rédea Kal emomrika...ovk 01’ ei olos T 
dv eins, Plut. Fragm. de An. vi. 2 
(v. p. 726 Wyttenb.) o mavredns 75 
kat pepunuevos (with the context), 
Dion Chrys. Or. xii, p. 203 rv odc- 
KAnpov Kat TO OvTe Tedelav TedeTHVY 
pvovpevoyv; see Valcknaer on Eurip. 
Hippol. 25,and Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 33 
sq., p. 126sq. Somewhat similarly in 


I. 29] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


171 


a \ a , \ 4 Ls ’ 
%Eis O KAL KOTTLW aywVICOMEVOs KaTa THY EvEepyelay av- 
~ \ > Ud > b) \ / 
TOU THY EVEPYOUMEVYY EV EMoL Ev OUVAMEL. 


the Lxx, I Chron. xxv. 8 reXelwv kai 
pavOavovrwy stands for ‘the teachers 
(or the wise) and the scholars. So 
also in 2 Pet. i. 16 émomrac yernbertes 
THs €keivov peyadetornros We seem to 
have the same metaphor. Asan illus- 
tration it may be mentioned that 
Plato and Aristotle called the higher 
philosophy éromrixov, because those 
who have transcended the bounds 
of the material, ofov évredq [I]. ev te- 
Aern| reAos exew hiroaodiay [Piroao- 
dias| vouigover, Plut. Mor. 382 D, E. 
For other metaphorical expressions 
in St Paul, derived from the myste- 
ries, see above on pvornptoy ver. 26. 
Influenced probably by this heathen 
use Of réAevos, the early Christians 
applied it to the baptized, as opposed 
to the catechumens: e.g. Justin Dial. 
8 (p. 225 0) mdpeori emiyvovte cou Tov 
Xpiorov rod Ceod Kai Teel@ yevoper@ 
evdaipoveiv, Clem. Hom. iii. 29 trroxo- 
pety pot KeAevoas, Os pnT@ ciAnpore Td 
mpos catnpiay Banticpa, Tois On Te- 
Aeious hn «.T.A., Xi. 36 Barricas...76n 
Aouroy tédevcov dvra «.7.A.3 and for 
later writers see Suicer Thes. 8. Vv. re- 
Aewdw, Terciwors. At all events we 
may ascribe to its connexion with the 
mysteries the fact that it was adopted 
by Gnostics at a later date, and most 
probably by the Gnosticizers at this 
time, to distinguish the possessors of 
the higher yvdors from the vulgar 
herd of believers: see the passages 
quoted in the note on Phil. iii. 15. 
While employing the favourite Gnostic 
term, the Apostle strikes at the root 
of the Gnostic doctrine. The lan- 
guage descriptive of the heathen mys- 
teries is transferred by him to the 
Christian dispensation, that he may 
thus more effectively contrast the 
things signified. The true Gospel also 
has its mysteries, its hierophants, its 
initiation: but these are open to all 
alike. In Christ every believer is ré- 


Aevos, for he has been admitted as 
exomtns of its most profound, most 
awful, secrets. See again the note 
ON droxpuot, ii. 3. 

29. eis 6] 1.€. els TO mapacTiica wavra 
avOpwrov rédevoy, ‘that I may initiate 
all mankind in the fulness of this mys- 
tery, ‘that I may preach the Gospel 
to all without reserve” If St Paul 
had been content to preach an exclu- 
sive Gospel, he might have saved him- 
self from more than half the troubles 
of his life. 

xoria| This word is used especi- 
ally of the labour undergone by the 
athlete in his training, and therefore 
fitly introduces the metaphor of dyw- 
vicouevos: comp. I Tim. iv. 10 eis rod- 
To yap komi@pev Kal dywrCopeba (the 
correct reading), and see the passages 
quoted on Phil. ii. 16. 

dyouCopevos| ‘contending in the 
lists? the metaphor being continued 
in the next verse (ii. 1), 7Aikov ayava; 
comp. iv. 12. These words dyav, dyo- 
via, ayeviterOa, are only found in St 
Paul and the Pauline writings (Luke, 
Hebrews) in the New Testament. 
They occur in every group of St Paul’s 
Epistles. The use here most resembles 
1 Thess. ii. 2 Aahjjoat mpos vpas TO 
evayyéAtov Tod Geod ev TOAA@ ayart. 

evepyoupevny] Comp. Eph.i iii.20. For 
the difference between évepyeiv and 
evepyeio ai see the note on Gal. v. 6. 

II. 1—3. ‘I spoke of an arenaand 
a conflict in describing my apostolic 
labours. The image was not lightly 
chosen. I would haveyouknowthat my 
care is not confined to my own direct 
and personal disciples. I wish you to 
understand the magnitude of the 
struggle, which my anxiety for you 
costs me—for you and for your neigh- 
bours of Laodicea, and for all who, 
like yourselves, have never met me 
face to face in the flesh. I am con- 
stantly wrestling in spirit, that the 


172 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


2 en se 


II. *O€A\w rap UMas €lOEval, “iNiKov aryeover Exe Umrep 
Upav kat tov év Aaodicla kal boo ovx ewpakav TO 
mposwrov fou €y capkl, “iva TapaxAnOwow ai kapdiat 


hearts of all such may be confirmed 
and strengthened in the faith; that 
they may be united in love; that they 
may attain to all the unspeakable 
wealth which comes from the firm 
conviction of an understanding mind, 
may be brought to the perfect know- 
ledge of God's mystery, which is no- 
thing else than Christ—Christ con- 
taining in Himself all the treasures of 
wisdom and knowledge hidden away, 

I. Odo kr.d.] As in 1 Cor. xi. 3- 
The corresponding negative form, o¥ 
Gero [OeNoper] duds dyvoeiy, is the more 
common expression in St Paul; Rom. 
139 Xb 25,0 Cor x:, 14 ibid. Cor. 
i. 8, 1 Thess. iv. 13. 

ayava| The arena of the contest to 
which dywv(ouevos in the preceding 
verse refers may be either outward or 
inward. It will include the ‘fightings 
without,’ as well as the ‘fears within’ 
Here however the inward struggle, 
the wrestling in prayer, is the predo- 
minant idea, as in iv. 12 wavrore dyavt- 
Copevos Umép vpav €v rats Tpooevxais 
iva orabyre KTA, 

tav ev Aaod.ixia] The Laodiceans 
were exposed to the same doctrinal 
perils as the Colossians: see above, 
pp. 2, 41 sq. The Hierapolitans are 
doubtless included in cat oot k.t.d. 
(comp. iv. 13), but are not mentioned 
here by name, probably because they 
were less closely connected with Co- 
lossze (see iv. 15 sq.),and perhaps also 
because the danger was less threaten- 
ing there. 

kat doo. K7.A.] ‘and all who, like 
yourselves, have not seen, etc.’; where 
the kai doo introduces the whole class 
to which the persons previously enu- 
merated belong ; so Acts iv. 6”Avvas 
re) apxtepevs kal Kaiagas kal “Ioavyns kal 
"AdeEavdpos kal 6cou joay ek yévous 
dpxteparixod, Rev. XVili. 17 Kai mas Ku- 
Bepynrns kal mas o émi tomov méwv Kal 


vadrat kal 6oot THY Odhaccay éepyatov- 
tat. Even asimple xai will sometimes 
introduce the general after the parti- 
cular, e.g. Acts v. 29 0 Ilérpos kai of 
aroaroka, Ar. Nub. 413 év ’A@nvatos 
kat tois "EdAnot, etc.; see Kihner 
Gramm. § 521, 1. p.791. On the other 
hand kal dco, occurring in an enume- 
ration, sometimes introducesa different 
class from those previously mentioned, 
as e.g. in Herod, vii. 185. As a pure 
grammatical question therefore it is 
uncertain whether St Paul’s language 
here implies his personal acquaintance 
with his correspondents or the con- 
trary. But in all such cases the sense 
of the context must be our guide. 
In the present instance xat door is 
quite out of place, unless the Colos- 
sians and Laodiceans also were per- 
sonally unknown to the Apostle. There 
would be no meaning in singling 
out individuals who were known to 
him, and then mentioning compre- 
hensively a/Z who were unknown to 
him: see above, p. 28, note 4. Hence 
we may infer from the expression 
here, that St Paul had never visited 
Colossze—an inference which has been 
already shown (p. 23 sq.) to accord 
both with the incidental language of 
this epistle elsewhere and with the 
direct historical narrative of the Acts. 

éwpaxav| For this ending of the 3rd 
pers. plur. perfect in -ay see Winer 
§ xiii. p. 90. The received text reads 
éwpaxact. In this passage the w form 
has the higher support; but below 
in ver. 18 the preponderance of au- 
thority favours éopaxey rather than 
éwpaxev. On the use of the form in o 
see Buttmann Ausf. Griech. Sprachi. 
§ 84, I. p. 325. 

2. mapaxrdnOaow] ‘encouraged, 
confirmed, i.e. ‘comforted’ in the 
older and wider meaning of the word 
(‘confortati’), but not with its mo- 


II. 3] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


173 


? i / > > , \ ’ a“ a 

avTov, cuuPiPacbevtes ev ayann Kat es Tay mXoUTOS 
54 , ~ / > > I; ~ 

THs TANpOPoplas THS TUVETEWS, ELS ETLYVWOLY TOU fLU- 
a ~ ~ > ©. > \ {¢ e 

arnpiov Tov Oeov, Xpiarov 3év w eiaivy mavTes ot On- 


dern and restricted sense: see mapa- 
kAnows Phil. ii. 1. For mapaxaneiy tas 
kapdias comp. iy. 8, Ephes. vi, 22, 2 
Thess. ii. 17. 

ai xapSia] They met the Apostle 
heart to heart, though not face to 
face. We have here the same oppo- 
sition of xapdia and mpdowmoy as in 
1 Thess. ii. 17, though less directly 
expressed ; see ver. 5. 

avtav| Where we should expect 
dpav, but the substitution of the third 
person for the second is suggested by 
the immediately preceding kai doe. 
This substitution confirms the inter- 
pretation of kai dao. already given. 
Unless the Colossians are included in 
dao, they must be excluded by avray. 
Yet this exclusion is hardly conceiva- 
ble in such a context. 

ovpBiBacbertes | ‘they being united, 
compacted, for cvpBiBa¢er must here 
have its common meaning, as it has 
elsewhere in this and the companion 
epistle: ver. 19 dua trav apov kai 
suvdeopov...cupBiBacopnevov, Ephes. iy. 
16 ray TO TGpa cvvappodoyovpevoy Kai 
cvpBiBatowevov, Otherwise we might 
be disposed to assign to this verb here 
the sense which it always bears in the 
Lxx (e.g. in Is. xl. 13, 14, quoted 
in 1 Cor. ii. 16), ‘instructed, taught,’ 


as it is rendered in the Vulgate. Its . 


usage in the Acts is connected with 
this latter sense; e.g. ix. 22 cupBiBalav 
‘proving,’ xvi. 10 cupBiBatovres ‘con- 
cluding’; and so in xix. 33 cvveBiBa- 
cay ’Ad<Eavdpov (the best supported 
reading) can only mean ‘instructed 
Alexander.” For the different sense 
of the nominative absolute see the 
note on iii. 16. The received text 
substitutes cvpSiBacdevroyr here. 

év ayarn| For love is the ovvderpos 
(iii. 14.) of perfection. 

kat eis] ‘and brought unto, the 
thought being supplied from the pre- 


ceding cupSiBacbevres, which involves 
an idea of motion, comp. Joh. xx. 7 
evreTuALypevoy eis Eva ToTOV. 

may mAovros| This reading is better 
supported than either wav ro mAodros 
or zravta mAovroy, While, as the inter- 
mediate reading, it also explains the 
other two. 

Ths mAnpopopias|] ‘the full assu- 
rance, for such seems to be the 
meaning of the substantive wherever 
it occurs in the New Testament; 1 
Thess. i. 5 €v mAnpodopia modAn, Heb. 
Vi. II mpos THY mAnpohopiay rijs eArridos, 
X. 22 év mAnpodopia micrews, comp. 
Clem. Rom. 42 pera mAnpohopias mrvev- 
patos ayiov. With the exception of 
1 Thess. i. 5 however, all the biblical 
passages might bear the other sense 
‘fulness’: see Bleek on Heb. vi. 11. 
For the verb see the note on memAn- 
popopnpevor below, iv. 12. 

ériyvwow] See the note on i. 9. 

Tov puotnpiov K.t.A.] ‘the mystery 
of God, even Christ in whom, etc., 
Xptorov being in apposition with rod 
puotnpiov; comp. i. 27 Tov puotnpiov 
TovTov...0 €oTw Xpioros ev viv, I Tim. 
iii. 16 ro THs evoeBelas pvatnpiov, “Os 
édavepo6nx.t.r. The reasons for adopt- 
ing the reading ro} Geod Xpicrov are 
given in the detached note on various 
readings. Other interpretations of this 
reading are; (1) ‘the God Christ, 
taking Xpiorod in apposition with 
@cov ; or (2) ‘the God of Christ,’ 
making it the genitive after Geod: 
but both expressions are without a 
parallel in St Paul. The mystery 
here is not ‘Christ,’ but ‘Christ as 
containing in Himself all the treasures 
of wisdom’; see the note on i. 27 
Xpuoros ev vuiv. For the form of the 
sentence comp. Ephes. iv. 15, 16 7 xep- 
adj, Xprotos €& ov wav TO Opa «.T.A. 

3. navres| So wav mottos ver. 2, 
naon copia ii. 28. These repetitions 


174 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[Il. 4 


~ , \ / 6] A ~~ 
caupot THs Gopias Kal yywoews amoxpvpot. *TovTo 


serve to emphasize the character of 
the Gospel, which is as complete in 
itself, as it is universal in its appli- 
cation. 

codias kat yydoews| The two words 
occur together again Rom. xi. 33 o 
Babos mdovrov kal codias Kal yvorews 
©cov, 1 Cor. xii. 8. They are found 
in conjunction also several times 
in the uxx of Eccles. i. 7, 16, 18, ii. 
21, 26, ix. 10, where AND5N is repre- 
sented by codia and ny by years. 
While yao is simply intuitive, 
copia is ratiocinative also. While 
yvao.s applies chiefly to the appre- 
hension of truths, copia superadds the 
power of reasoning about them and 
tracing their relations. When Bengel 
on 1 Cor. xii. 8 sq. says, ‘ Cognitio 
[yv@ous| est quasi visus ; sapientia 
[copia] visus cum sapore,’ he is so 
far right; but when he adds, ‘ cogni- 
tio, rerum agendarum; sapientia, re- 
rum eternarum,’ he is quite wide of 
the mark. Substantially the same, 
and equally wrong, is St Augustine’s 
distinction de Trin. xii. 20, 25 (VIII. 
pp. 923, 926) ‘intelligendum est ad 
contemplationem sapientiam [codiar], 
ad actionem scientiam [yvacw] perti- 
nere...quod alia [codia] sit intellec- 
tualis cognitio seternarum rerum, alia 
[yvaars |rationalis temporalium’(comp. 
xiv. 3, p. 948), and again de Div. 
Quest. ad Simpl. ii. 2 § 3 (VI. p. 114) 
‘ita discerni probabiliter solent, ut 
sapientia pertineat ad intellectum 
seternorum, scientia vero ad ea que 
sensibus corporis experimur.’ This is 
directly opposed to usage. In Aris- 
totle Eth. Nic, i. 1 yrdors is opposed 
to mpaéis. In St Paul it is connected 
with the apprehension of eternal mys- 
teries, 1 Cor. xili. 2 €iS6 ra pvorn- 
pla wavra kal macay tiv yvoow. On 
the relation of codia to civecis see 
above, i. 9. 

dmoxpypo] So 1 Cor. i. 7 Aadovper 
Gcov codhiay €v pvotnpio, thy dro- 
kexpuppéevnv. As before in réAetos 


(i. 28), 80 here again in dadxpudor the 
Apostle adopts a favourite term of 
the Gnostic teachers, only that he may 
refute a favourite doctrine. The word 
apocrypha was especially applied to 
those esoteric writings, for which 
such sectarians claimed an auctoritas 
secreta (Aug. c. Faust. xi. 2, VII. p. 
219) and which they carefully guarded 
from publication after the manner of 
their Jewish prototypes the Essenes 
(see above, p. 89 sq.): comp. Iren. i. 
20. 1 auvOnrov mAnOos aroxpypav kal 
vodwv ypapdav, Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 
15 (p. 357) BiBAovs damoxpvdous rav- 
dpos rovde of tHv IIpodixou periovres 
aipecw avyovot KextnoOa, ib. iii, 4 
(p. 524) é€ppun dé avrois ro Soypa ex 
Twos amoxpvpov. See also the appli- 
cation of the text Prov. ix. 17 adprwv 
kpudhiav ndews aac be to these heretics 
in Strom. i. 19 (p. 375). Thus the word 
apocrypha in the first instance was 
an honourable appellation applied by 
the heretics themselves to their eso- 
teric doctrine and their secret books; 
but owing to the general character 
of these works the term, as adopted 
by orthodox writers, got to signify 
‘false,’ ‘spurious.’ The early fathers 
never apply it, as it is now applied, 
to deutero-canonical writings, but 
confine it to supposititious and he- 
retical works: see Smith’s Dictionary 
of the Bible s. v. In the text St 
Paul uses it xaraypynorixds, as he uses 
pvornpiov. * All the richest treasures 
of that secret wisdom,’ he would say, 
‘on which you lay so much stress, 
are buried in Christ, and being buried 
there are accessible to all alike who 
seek Him. But, while the term azo- 
kpugos is adopted because it was 
used to designate the secret doctrine 
and writings of the heretics, it is also 
cntirely in keeping with the metaphor 
of the ‘treasure’; e.g. Is. xlv. 3 dace 
cot Onoavpovs cKorewwors amoxpudous, 
1 Mace. i. 23 €AaBe rovs Onoavpovs 
rovs amoxpvpous, Dan. xi. 43 €y rots 


II. 5] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


175 


, 4 At ~ 
AEYywW, va pndets Vuas maparoyiCnTat év miOavororia- 
5 > \ \ ~ \ af > A a vA ‘ 
él yap Kat TH GapKl amet, a\Aa Tw TVEVUATL TU 


droxpudots Tot xpucov kal TOU apyvpou : 
comp. Matt. xiii. 44. 

The stress thus laid on dzoxpudot 
will explain its position. It is not 
connected with ciciv, but must be 
taken apart as a secondary predicate: 
comp. ver. 10 €ore ev a’t@ memAnpo- 
pevor, iii, Lov 6 Xpiotos eotw ev Seka 
Tov Gcod KaOnpevos, James i 17 av 
Swpnua rédetoy Gvwbev éativ, KaraBai- 
voy K.T.A. 

4—7. ‘I donot say this without a 
purpose. I wish to warn you against 
any one who would lead you astray 
by specious argument and persuasive 
rhetoric. For I am not an indifferent 
spectator of your doings. Although 
I am absent from you in my flesh, yet 
I am present with you in my spirit. 
I rejoice to behold the orderly array 
and the solid phalanx which your faith 
towards Christ presents against the 
assaults of the foe. I entreat you 
therefore not to abandon the Christ, 
as you learnt from Epaphras to know 
Him, even Jesus the Lord, but to walk 
still in Him as heretofore. I would 
have you firmly rooted once for all in 
Iiim. I desire to see you built up 
higher in Him day by day, to see you 
growing ever stronger and stronger 
through your faith, while you remain 
true to the lessons taught you of old, 
so that you may abound in it, and thus 
abounding may pour forth your hearts 
in gratitude to God the giver of all’ 

4. todto Aéyw xzt.d.] ‘I say all 
this to you, lest you should be led 
astray by those false teachers who 
speak of another knowledge, of other 
mysteries. In other connexions rov- 
to Aéyw will frequently refer to the 
words following (e.g. Gal. iii. 17, 1 Cor. 
i. 12); but with wa it points to what 
has gone before, as in Joh. v. 34 raivra 
eyo iva vpeis cwO7Te. 

The reference in rodro A¢yo extends 
over vy. I—3, and involves two state- 


ments; (1) The declaration that all 
knowledge is comprehended in Christ, 
vv. 2, 3; (2) The expression of his own 
personal anxiety that they should re- 
main stedfast in this conviction, vv. 
1,2. This last point explains the lan- 
guage which follows, ei yap kai ry 
caps: «7.2. 

mapadoyi(nra| ‘lead you astray by 
Jalse reasoning, as in Daniel xiv. 7 
pndeis oe mapadoyt(éoOw (LXX): comp. 
James i. 22, Ign. Magn. 3. It is not 
an uncommon word either in the Lxx 
or in classical writers. The system 
against which St Paul here contends 
professed to be a diAocodia (ver. 8) 
and had a Aoyov codias (ver. 23). 

ev miOavodoyia| The words méavo- 
Aoyety (Arist. Hth. Nic. i. 1), riBavodo- 
yia (Plat. Theat. 162 8), miBavodoy- 
kos (Hpictet. i. 8. 7), occur occasion- 
ally in classical writers, but do not 
bear a bad sense, being most fre- 
quently opposed to drode£is, as pro- 
bable argument to strict mathemati- 
cal demonstration. This contrast pro- 
bably suggested St Paul’s language in 
I Cor. ii. 4 ovk ev metOois codias do- 
yous GAN ev dmodci€et mvedvparos 
K.T.A., and may possibly have been 
present to his mind here. 

5. adda] Frequently introduces the 
apodosis after ei or ei kai in St Paul; 
e.g. Rom. vi. 5, 1 Cor. ix. 2, 2 Cor. iv. 
16, y. 16; xi.'6, xin. 4 (v. 1). 

To mvevpatt] ‘in my spirit, not 
‘by the Spirit? We have here the 
common antithesis of flesh and spirit, 
or body and spirit: comp. 1 Cor. v. 3 
drav TO odpart, mapodr de r@ mvevpate. 
St Paul elsewhere uses another anti- 
thesis, rpoo#me and xapdia, to express 
this same thing; 1 Thess. ii. 17. 

xaipwv kat Brérav] ‘rejoicing and 
beholding?” This must not be regarded 
as a logical inversion. The contem- 
plation of their orderly array, thougu 
it might have been first the cause, 


176 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[IT. 6 


aes Sint A / \ / e ~ 4 tA \ \ 
UELLV ElUL, YAlLNWY Kal Br€rwy Vuwv TH Tac Kal TO 


/ > \ / a 
TTEPEWUa TIS Els XprsTov TIT TEWS VUwY. 


Cus OUV Tap- 


\ lan A , > ~ 
edaBeTe Toy XpiaTov, Incovv Tov Kupuoy, év avt@ Trept- 


was afterwards the consequence, of 
the Apostle’s rejoicing. He looked, 
because it gave him satisfaction to 
look. 

ry raéw] ‘your orderly array, a 
military metaphor: comp. e.g. Xen. 
Anab., i. 2. 18 iSotca thy Napmpornra 
kal tHy taéw Tod otpatevparos €Oav- 
pace, Plut. Vit. Pyrrh. 16 xariwdov 
raéw te kat puAakas Kal KOopoy avTav 
Kal TO oXHpa THs oTparomedetas €Oav- 
pace. The enforced companionship 
of St Paul with the soldiers of the 
preetorian guard at this time (Phil. i. 
13) might have suggested this image. 
At all events in the contemporary 
epistle (Hphes. vi. 14 sq.) we have an 
elaborate metaphor from the armour 
of a soldier. 

ro otepéwpal ‘solid front, close 
phalanx, a continuation of the me- 
taphor: comp. 1 Mace. ix. 14 eidev 
*lovdas Ore Baxyidns kal 16 otepewpa 
THs TapepBorrs ev Tois SeEcois. Some- 
what similar are the expressions ore- 
peodv Tov moAepov I Mace. x. 50, xara 
THY oTepewow THs paxns Heclus. xxviil. 
10. For the connexion here compare 
1 Pet. v. 9 avtiotntre orepeol TH TioTeL, 
Acts xvi. 5 eorepeovvro TH miaret. 

6. ws ovv mapedaBere Kt.) i. 
‘Let your conviction and conduct be 
in perfect accordance with the doc- 
trines and precepts of the Gospel as 
it was taught to you.’ For this use 
of wapedaBere ‘ye received from your 
teachers, were instructed in,’ comp. 
1\Cor/ XV. 1; 3, Gal... 9; Phils iviso, 
1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. I, 2 Thess. iii. 6, 
‘he word rapadayavery implies either 
‘so receive as transmitted,’ or ‘ to re- 
ceive for transmission’: see the note 
on Gal. i. 12. The ws of the protasis 
suggests a ovrws in the apodosis, which 
in this case is unexpressed but must 
be understood. The meaning of os 


mwapeAaBere here is explained by the 
kabas euabere do Enagpa in i. 7; see 
the note there, and comp. below, ver. 7 
Kaas €d:dayOnre. 

rov Xptcrov] ‘the Christ, rather 
than ‘the Gospel,’ because the central 
point in the Colossian heresy was the 
subyersion of the true idea of the 
Christ. 

"Inaovv rov Kupiov] ‘even Jesus the 
Lord, in whom the true conception 
of the Christ is realised: comp. Ephes. 
iv. 20, 21, vpeis S€ ovx ovTws epadere 
TOV XptoToy, elye avTov Hkovcare Kal 
€v avt@ edidaxOnre, Kad@s EoTLv Gdn- 
Oe.a ev TH "Inood, where the same 
idea is more directly expressed. The 
genuine doctrine of the Christ con- 
sists in (1) the recognition of the his- 
torical person Jesus, and (2) the ac- 
ceptance of Him as the Lord. This 
doctrine was seriously endangered by 
the mystic theosophy of the false 
teachers. The same order which we 
have here occurs also in Ephes. iii. 11 
ev TO Xpiote “Incod tO Kupio judy 
(the correct reading). 

7. éppi(opevor] Two points may 
be noticed here; (1) The expressive 
change of tenses; éepprCapevos ‘ firmly 
rooted’ once for all, érotxodopovpevor, 
BeBaovpevor, ‘built up and strength- 
ened’ from hour to hour. (2) The 
rapid transition of metaphor, mepi- 
qmareire, eppiCwpéevor, émorkodopovpevor, 
the path, the tree, the building: comp. 
Ephes. iii. 17 é€ppi€@peévoe kat reOepe- 
Avwpévot. The metaphors of the plant 
and tne building occur together in 
I Cor. iii. 9 Geod yewpytov, Geod oiko- 
Sony. The transition in this passage 
is made easier by the fact that pifodr 
(Plut. Mor, 321 D), éxpicody (Jer. i. 10, 
1 Mace. v. 51), mpoppifos (Jos. B. J. 
vii. 8. 7), etc., are not uncommonly 
used of cities and buildings. 


IL. 7] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


177 


MaTELTE, “EpptCwpevor Kat EroKodomovpevor ev adT@ Kal 
fod \ 
BeBaovpevor TH miaTel, Kabws édidaxOnTe, TEPLO-OEV- 


> Spent oe, > , 
OVTES €V auTi) EV eVUXaAPLOTLA. 


errotkodopovpevor] ‘being built up,’ 
as in 1 Cor. ili. 10o—14, After this 
verb we might have expected é7’ 
avr@ or én’ adrov (1 Cor. iii. 12) 
rather than év avr@; but in this 
and the companion epistle Christ is 
represented rather as the binding 
element than as the foundation of the 
building: e.g. Ephes. ii. 20 éo:codo- 
pndevres emit Oewedio THv aToaTOA@y 
kat mpodyntay, dvros akpoyaviaiov 
avrod Xpiorod “Inaov, év  maca [7] 
oixodopy avger eis vady aytov ev Kupia, 
€v @ kal vpeis avvorxodopeicbe. The 
émt in érotxoSoueiv does not neces- 
sarily refer to the original foundation, 
but may point to the continued pro- 
gress of the building by successive 
layers, as e.g. [Aristot.] Rhet. ad Alex, 
4 (Pp. 1426) érrouxoSopotvra To Erepov ws 
€mt ro €repov avéew. Hence émoixo- 
Sovety is frequently used absolutely, 
‘to build up’ (e.g. Jude 20, Polyb. 
iii, 27.4), as here. The repetition of 
€v avr@ emphasizes the main idea of 
the passage, and indeed of the whole 
epistle. 

th twiore] ‘by your faith, the 
dative of the instrument; comp. Heb. 
Xlil, 9 kadov yap xapite BeBacodioba 
Thy Kapdiay. Faith is, as it were, the 
cement of the building: comp. Clem. 
Rom. 22 ratra mavra BeBaot yj év 
Xpiore riots. 

KaOas ed:daxOnre] i.e. ‘remaining 
true to the lessons which you re- 
ceived from Epaphras, and not led 
astray byany later pretenders’; comp. 
i. 6,7 év @dnOela, xabas éudbere amo 
’Eradpa. 

€v avrj x.t.A.] The same ending 
occurs in iy. 2. Thanksgiving is the 
end of all human conduct, whether 
exhibited in words or in works. For 
the stress laid on thanksgiving in St 
Paul’s epistles generally, see the note 


COL. 


on Phil. iv. 6. The words evxdp.oros, 
evxapioreiv, evxapioria, occur in St 
Paul’s writings alone of the Apostolic 
epistles. In this epistle especially 
the duty of thanksgiving assumes a 
peculiar prominence by being made 
a refrain, as here and in iii. 15, 17, 
iv. 2: see also i. 12. f 
8—15. ‘Be on your guard; do not 
suffer yourselves to fall a prey to 
certain persons who would lead you 
captive by a hollow and deceitful 
system, which they call philosophy. 
They substitute the traditions of men 
for the truth of God. They enforce 
an elementary discipline of mundane 
ordinances fit only for children. Theirs 
is not the Gospel of Christ. In Christ 
the entire fulness of the Godhead 
abides for ever, having united itself 
with man by taking a human body. 
And so in Him—not in any inferior 
mediators—ye have your life, your 
being, for ye are filled from His 
fulness. He, I say, is the Head over 
all spiritual beings—call them prin- 
cipalities or powers or what you will. 
In Him too ye have the true circum- 
cision—the circumcision which is not 
made with hands but wrought by 
the Spirit—the circumcision which 
divests not of a part only but of the 
whole carnal body—the circumcision 
which is not of Moses but of Christ. 
This circumcision ye have, because ye 
were buried with Christ to your old 
selves beneath the baptismal waters, 
and were raised with Him from those 
same waters to a new and regenerate 
life, through your faith in the power- 
ful working of God who raised Him 
from the dead. Yes, you—you Gen- 
tiles who before were dead, when ye 
walked in your transgressions and in 
theuncircumcision of your unchastened 
carnal heathen heart—even you did 


12 


178 


EPISTLE TO THH COLOSSIANS. 


[1L. 8 


~ of . : ad 
SBANewerTe py Tis Upas EoTat 6 aUAaywyay oa 


8. ph tis €oTae Vuas. 


God quicken into life together with 
Christ; then and there freely for- 
giving all of us—Jews and Gentiles 
alike—all our transgressions ; then and 
there cancelling the bond which stood 
valid against us (for it bore our own 
signature), the bond which engaged us 
to fulfil all the law of ordinances, which 
was our stern pitiless tyrant. Aye, 
this very bond hath Christ put out 
of sight for ever, nailing it to His 
cross and rending it with His body 
and killing it in His death. Taking 
upon Him our human natyre, He 
stripped off and cast aside all the 
powers of evil which clung to it like a 
poisonons garment. Asa mighty con- 
queror He displayed these His fallen 
enemies to an astonished world, lead- 
ing them in triumph on His cross.’ 

8. BAérere k.z.A.] The form of the 
sentence is a measure ofthe imminence 
of the peril. The usual construction 
with Brew jx) is a conjunctive; e.g. 
in Luke xxi. 8 Bdérere xy wAavnOyre. 
Here the substitution of an indicative 
shows that the danger is real; comp. 
Heb. iii. 12 Bdemrere pnmore ota €v 
Tit Vuay Kapdia Toynpa amortias. For 
an example cf wy with a future indi- 
cative sec Mark xiv. 2 pymote gorat 
OdpvB0s; «snd comp. Winer § lvi. p. 
631 sq. 

tis| This indefinite ris is frequently 
used by St Paul, when speaking of 
opponents whom he knows well 
enough but does not care to name: 
see the note on Gal. i. 7. Comp. Ign. 
Smy7rn. 5 ov reves ayvoodvres apvovv- 
Tat...Ta d€ Ovojata avT@Y, OvTa amLOTA, 
ovK edo&é por eyypavvat. 

cvdaywyav| ‘inakes you his prey, 
carries you off body and soul” The 
word appears not to occur before St 
Paul, nor after him, independently of 
this passage, tilla late date: e.g. Heliod. 
Aeth. x. 35 otros éotw o thy éepny Ov- 
yatépa ovdaywynoas. In Tatian ad 
Graec, 22 vpeis S€ Ud ToUT@Y ovAGyo- 


yetobe it seems to be a reminiscence 


- of St Paul. Its full and proper mean- 


ing, as appears from the passages 
quoted, is not ‘to cespoil, but ‘to 
carry off as spoil, in accordance with 
the analogous compounds, dovAayo- 
yeiv, oxevaywyeiv. So too the closely 
allied word Aadupayoyetv in Plut. 
Mor. p. 5 wodepos yap ov Aahupaywyet 
aperny, Vit. Galb. 5 ra pev Tadarar, 
oTay UToxeiptor yevovtat, apupaywyn- 
ceca. The Colossians had been res- 
cued from the bondage of darkness; 
they had been transferred to the. 
kingdom of light; they had been. 
settled there as free citizens (i. 12, 
13); and now there was danger that 
they should fall into a state worse: 
than their former slavery, that they 
should be carried off as so much 
booty. Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 6 aiyparo- 
ticovres yuvakapia. 

For the construction gora: 6 cvAa- 
yoyo see the notes on Gal. i. 7, iii. 21. 
The former passage is a close parallel 
to the words here, e? uy rwés elow of 
Tapacoovres vuas K7.A. The expres- 
sion o ovdaywyoy gives a directness 
and individuality to the reference, 
which would have been wanting to the 
more natural construction ds cvAayo- 
ynoes. 

dua tis pirocodias x.t.d.] ‘through 
his philosophy which is an empty de- 
ceit. The absence of both preposition 
and article in the second clause shows 
that Kevjs dwarns describes and quali- 
fics didocodias. Clement therefore 
(Strom. vi. 8, p. 771) had a right to 
contend that St Paul does not here 
condemn ‘ philosophy’ absolutely. The 
guiocodia kat Kevn darn of this pas- 
sage corresponds to the Wevddrupos 
yvoors of I Tim, Vi. 20. 

But though ‘philosophy’ is not, 
condemned, it is disparaged by the. 
connexion in which it is placed. St. 
Chrysostom’s comment is not altoge- 
ther wrong, éme1d1 Soxet wepvov elvat 75 


IL. 8] 
THs ditosodpias Kat Kevis 


tis ditocvodias, mpooégnke Kat Kevns 
arrarns. The term was doubtless used by 
the false teachers themselves to de- 
scribe theirsystem. Though essentially 
Greek as a name and as an idea, it 
had found its way into Jewish circles. 
Philo speaks of the Hebrew religion 
and Mosaic law as 7 marpios didogo- 
gia (Leg. ad Gat. 23, 11. p. 568, de 
Soman, ii. 18, I. p. 675) or 4 "IovSaixy 
drocodia (Leg. ad Gat. 33, 1. p. 582) 
or 7 kara Mavony dirooodia (de ALut. 
Nom. 39, I. p. 612). The system of 
the Essenes, the probable progenitors 
of the false teachers at Colossee, he 
describes as 7 diya weptepyeias ‘ENXn- 
wikav ovoparav dirocodia (Omn. prob. 
lib. 13, U. p. 459). So too Josephus 
speaks of the three Jewish sects as 
Tpeis Prrocodia(Ant. xviii. 1.2, comp. 
B.J. ii. 8. 2). It should be remem- 
bered also, that in this later age, 
owing to Roman influence, the term 
was used to describe practical not less 
than speculative systems, so that it 
would cover the ascetic lite as well as 
the mystic theosopby of these Colos- 
sian heretics. Hence the Apostle is 
here flinging back at these false teach- 
ers a favourite term of theirown, ‘their 
vaunted philosophy, which is hollow 
and misleading.’ 

The word indeed could claim a truly 
noble origin; for it is said to have 
arisen out of the humility of Py- 
thagoras, who called himself ‘a lover 
of wisdom, pndéva yap eivat cody 
dvOpwrov add’ 7} Ceov (Diog. Laert. 
Procem. § 12; comp. Cic. Zusc. v. 3). 
In such a sense the term would en- 
tirely accord with the spirit and teach- 
ing of St Paul; for it bore testimony 
to the insufficiency of the human in- 
tellect and the need of a revelation. 
But in his age it had come to be asso- 
ciated generally with the idea of subtle 
dialectics and profitless speculation ; 
while in this particular instance it was 
combined with a mystic cosmogony 
and angelology which contributed a 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


179 
] ‘ \ \ , 
ATATHS, KATA THv TAapa~ 


fresh element of danger. As con- 
trasted with the power and fulness 
and certainty of revelation, all such 
philosophy was ‘foolishness’ (1 Cor. 
1.20). It is worth observing that this 
word, which to the Grecks denoted 
the highest effort of the intellect, oc- 
curs here alone in St Paul, just as he 
uses dpetn, Which was their term to 
express the highest moral excellence, 
in a single passage only (Phil. iy. 8; 
see the note there). The reason is 
much the same in both cases. The 
Gospel had deposed the terms as 
inadequate to the higher standard, 
whether of knowledge or of practice, 
which it had introduced. 

On the attitude of the fathers to- 
wards philosophy, while philosophy 
was a living thing, see Smith’s Dic- 
tionary of the Bible sv. Clement, 
who was followed in the main by the 
earlier Alexandrine fathers, regards 
Greek philosophy not only as a pre- 
liminary training (spomaideia) for the 
Gospel, but even as in some sense a 
covenant (d:anxn) given by God to the 
Greeks (Strom. i. 5, p.331, vi. 5, p. 761, 
ib. §8, p. 771 8q.). Others, who were 
the great majority and of whom Ter- 
tullian may be taken as an extreme 
type, set their faces directly against 
it, seeing in it only the parent of ail 
heretical teaching: e.g. de Anim.z2, 3, 
Apol. 46, 47. In the first passage, 
referring to this text, he says, ‘ Ab 
apostolo jam tunc philosophia con- 
cussio veritatis providebatur’; in the 
second he asks, ‘Quid simile philo- 
sophus et Christianus?’ St Paul’s 
speech at Athens, on the only oc- 
casion when he is known to have 
been brought into direct personal 
contact with Greek philosophers (Acts 
xvii. 18), shows thet his sympathies 
would have been at least as much 
with Clement’s representations as with 
Tertullian’s. 

kara x.t.A.] The false teaching is 
described (1) As regards its source— 


12—2 


180 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[Il. 8 


~ , A \ = a / 
Soow Twav avpwrwy, KaTa Ta OTOLYELA TOV KOTMOV, 


‘the tradition of men’; (2) As regards 
its subject matter—‘ the rudiments of 
the world? 

Tv mapadoow k.t.A.] Other systems, 
as for instance the ceremonial mishna 
of the Pharisees, might fitly be de- 
scribed in this way (Matt, xv. 2 sq., 
Mark vii. 3 sq.): but such a descrip- 
tion was peculiarly appropriate to a 
mystic theosophy like this of the Co- 
lossian false teachers. The teaching 
might be oral or written, but it was 
essentially esoteric, essentially tradi- 
tional, It could not appeal to sacred 
books which had been before all the 
world for centuries. The LEssenes, 
the immediate spiritual progenitors 
of these Colossian heretics, distinct- 
ly claimed to possess such a source 
of knowledge, which they carefully 
guarded from divulgence; B. J. ii. 8.7 
CUVTNPHTELW Opoiws Ta TE TIS aipécews 
avray BiBdia kat Ta TOY dyyéAwy ovo- 
para (see above pp. 89, 90 sq., 95). 
The various Gnostic sects, their direct 
or collateral spiritual descendants, 


almost without exception traced their ' 


doctrines to a similar source: o.g. 
Hippol. Haer.v. 7 a dynot wapade do- 
Kévat Mapidpyn tov “IaxkwBov rod Kvu- 
piov Tov ddeAdor, Vil. 20 haciv eipnkévat 
MarGiay avrois Adyous adroxpygous ovs 
Hkovoe Tapa TOU gwTHpos, Clem. Alex. 
Strom. vii. 17 (p. 898) xaOamep 6 Bact- 
Aeldys, Kav TAavkiay émiypapyra dda- 
okadov, os avxovow avrol, Tov Tlérpov 
Eppnvea’ waavtws dé Kal Ovadevrivoy 
Gc0da Staxnkoéva péepovaw, yvwpipos 
dé ovtos éyeyover TlavAov. So too a 
later mystic theology of the Jews, 
which had many affinities with the 
teaching of the Christianized Essenes 
at Colossze, was self-designated Kab- 
bala or ‘tradition,’ professing to have 
been handed down orally from the 
patriarchs, See the note on dmoxpudor, 
ii, 3: 

Ta ototxeia] ‘the rudiments, the 
elementary teaching’; comp. ver. 20. 
The same phrase occurs again Gal. iv. 


3 (comp. ver. 9). As crocxeia signifies 
primarily ‘the letters of the alphabet,’ 
so as a secondary meaning it denotes 
‘rudimentary instruction” Accord- 
ingly it is correctly interpreted by 
Clement Strom. vi. 8 (p.771)TlatXos ... 
OvK ert madwOpopety a€ot emt tiv “EX- 
AnuiKny Pirogopiay, orotxeia Tov Ko- 
gov TavTnv adAnyopav, TToLYELwTLKnY 
tiva oveav. (i.e. elementary) kat mpo- 
ma.betav THs aAnOeias (comp. 2. Vi. 15, 
p. 799), and by Tertullian adv. Mare. 
v. 19 ‘secundum elemenita mundi, non 
secundum caelum et terram dicens, 
sed secundum litteras seculares” <A 
large number of the fathers however 
explained the expression to refer to 
the heavenly bodies (called crovxeia), 
as marking the seasons, so that the 
observance of ‘festivals and new- 
moons and sabbaths’ was a sort of 
bondage to them. It would appear 
from Tertullian’s language that Mar- 
cion also had so interpreted the 
words. On this false interpretation 
see the note on Gal. iv. 3. It is quite 
out of place here: for (1) The context 
suggests some mode of instruction, 
e.g. thy mapadocw Tar avOpdrov here, 
and Soyparifeode in ver. 20; (2) The 
keeping of days and seasons is quite 
subordinate to other external ob- 
servances. The rite of circumcision 
(ver. 11), and the distinction of meats 
(ver. 21), respectively, are placed in 
close and immediate connexion with 
Ta oToLxeia TOU Koopov in the two 
places where it occurs, whereas the 
observance of days and seasons (ver. 16) 
stands apart from either. 

tov Koopov| ‘of the world, that is, 
‘belonging to the sphere of material 
and external things.’ See the notes 
on Gal. iv. 3, Vi. 14. 

‘In Christ, so the Apostle seems 
to say, ‘you have attained the liberty 
and the intelligence of manhood; do 
not submit yourselves again to a rudi- 
mentary discipline fit only for chil- 
dren (ra crotxyeia) In Christ you 


II. 9, 10] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


I8I 


\ ° \ , i [on 4 3 b) a A - A 
Kat OU KaTa XplioTov OTL EV avuTw KATOLKEL TAV TO 


, CG / Lond \ > ‘ >’ ral 
TANNwWMA THIS GeotnTos TwuaTiKkws, Kal ETTE EV AUTH 


have been exalted into the sphere of 
the Spirit: do not plunge yourselves 
again into the atmosphere of material 
and sensuous things (rod Kécpov).’ 

ov kara. Xpiorov| ‘ not after Christ.’ 
This expression is wide in itself, and 
should be interpreted so as to supply 
the negative to both the preceding 
clauses ; ‘ Christ is neither the author 
nor the substance of their teaching : 
not the author, for they listen to hu- 
man traditions (cara thy mapadoot 
tov avOpamrev); not the substance, for 
they replace Him by formal ordinances 
(kara Ta oTorxeia Tov Koogpov) and by 
angelic mediators,’ 

9g sq. In explaining the true doc- 
trine which is ‘after Christ? St Paul 
condemns the two false principles, 
which lay at the root of this heretical 
teaching; (1) The theological error of 
substituting inferior and created be- 
ings, angelic mediators, for the divine 
Head Himself (vv. 9, 10); and (2) The 
practical error of insisting upon ritual 
and ascetic observances as the foun- 
dation of their moral teaching (vv. I1 
—14). Their theological speculations 
and their ethical code alike were at 
fault. On the intimate connexion be- 
tween these two errors, as springing 
out of a common root, the Gnostic 
dualism of these false teachers, see 
the introduction, pp. 33 sq., 79, 87, 
114 sq. 

dru k.t.A.]| The Apostle justifies the 
foregoing charge that this doctrine 
was not xara Xpiorov; ‘In Christ 
dwells the whole pleroma, the entire 
fulness of the Godhead, whereas they 
represent it to you as dispersed among 
several spiritual agencies. Christ is 
the one fountain-head of all spiritual 
life, whereas they teach you to seek it 
in communion with inferior creatures.’ 
The same truths have been stated be- 
fore (i. 14.sq.) more generally, and they 
are now restated, with direct and im- 


mediate reference to the heretical 
teaching. 

katotkei] ‘has its fixed abode? On 
the force of this compound in relation 
to the false teaching, see the note on 
10: 

may To TANp@pal ‘all the plenitude,’ 
‘the totality of the divine powers and 
attributes.’ On this theological term 
see i. 19, and the detached note at the 
end of the epistle. 

tis Oeornros] ‘of the Godhead, 
‘Non modo divinae virtutes, sed ipsa 
divina natura, writes Bengel. For 
the difference between Georns ‘ deitas,’ 
the essence, and Oevrns ‘ divinitas, 
the quality, see Trench NV. 7. Syn. 
§ ii p. 6. The different force of 
the two words may be seen by a 
comparison of two passages in Plu- 
tarch, Mor. p. 857 A maow Alyumrious 
Oevornra moddAjy Kat SiKavoodyny pap- 
tupnoas (where it means a divine 
inspiration or faculty, and where no 
one would have used 6edrnra), and 
Mor. 415 © ék 8€ jpaav eis Saipovas at 
Bedrloves uxat thy peraBoAry AapBa- 
vovaow, ex O€ Saipovwy odtyat pev ert 
Xpovm ToAA@ Sv aperis KabapOcioar 
mavramragt Oedrntos petéoxov (where 
Gevdrnros would be quite out of place, 
because all Saiyoves without exception 
were Geior, though they only became 
6cot in rare instances and after long 
probation and discipline). In the 
New Testament the one word occurs 
here alone, the other in Rom. i. 20 
alone. So also ro Gciov, a very favour- 
ite expression in Greek philosophy, is 
found once only, in Acts xvii. 29, where 
it is used with singular propriety ; for 
the Apostle is there meeting the hea- 
then philosophers on their own ground 
and arguing with them in their own 
language. Elsewhere he instinctively 
avoids a term which tends to obscure 
the idea of a personal God. In the 
Latin versions, owing to the poverty of 


182 


/ cf 9 ¢ 
TETANPWUEVOL, OS ETTLY 4 


the language, both @eorys and Oevorns 
are translated by the same term divi- 
nitas; but this was felt to be inade- 
quate, and the word dectas was coined 
ut a later date to represent Oedrns: 
August. de Civ. Det vii. § 1, VII. p. 162 
(quoted in Trench) ‘Hane divinitatem 
vel, ut sic dixerim, dettatem: nam et 
hoc verbo uti jam nostros non piget, 
ut de Graeco expressius transferant id 
quod illi dedrnra appellant etc.’ 
copaticas| ‘bodily-wise, ‘corpo- 
really, i.e. ‘assuming a bodily form, 
becoming incarnate. This is an ad- 
dition to the previous statement in 
i, 19 €v avr@ evdoxnoey Trav TO TAN popa 
Katouknoa. The indwelling of the ple- 
roma refers to the Eternal Word, and 
not to the Incarnate Christ: but co- 
parikos is added to show that the 
Word, in whom the pleroma thus had 
its abode from all eternity, crowned 
His work by the Incarnation. Thus 
while the main statement xarocxet may 
TO mAnpopa tis Oedtnros Of St Paul 
corresponds to the opening sentence 
6 Aoyos Av mpos Tov Ody Kal Geds ny 6 
Aoyos of St John, the subsidiary ad- 
verb caparixos of St Paul has its 
counterpart in the additional state- 
ment kal 6 Aoyos aap& eyévero Of St 
John. All other meanings which have 
been assigned to caparixas here, as 
‘wholly’ (Hieron. i Js. xi. I 8q., IV. 
p. 156, ‘nequaquam per partes, ut in 
ceteris sanctis’), or ‘really’ (Aug. Zpist. 
cexlix, IL p. 513 ‘Ideo corporaliter dixit, 
quia illi umbratiliter seducebant’), or 
‘essentially’ (Hilar. de Zin. viii. 54, 
IL p. 252 ‘ Dei ex Deo significat veri- 
tatem etc.,’ Cyril. Alex. in Theodoret. 
Op. V. p. 34. Touréoti, ov oxETIK@S, 
Isid. Pelus, Zp. iv. 166 dyri tov ovar- 
dos), are unsupported by usage. Nor 
again can the body be understood of 
anything else but Christ’s human body; 
as for instance of the created World 
(Theod. Mops. in Rab. Op. vi. p. 522) 
or of the Church (Anon. in Chrysost. ad 
loc.). According to these two last inter- 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[Ii. ‘re 


\ ie 9 ~ 
kepadyn maons apxyns Kal 


pretations ro mAnpapa tas Oedrnros is 
taken to mean the Universe (‘ univer- 
sam naturam repletam ab eo’) and the 
Church (rjv éexkAnoiay menAnpopévnv 
v70 TAS OedtnTos avTov, See Ephes. i. 23) 
respectively, because either of these 
may be said to reside in Him, as the 
source of its life, and to stand to Him 
in the relation of the body to the 
head (caparixés). But these forced 
interpretations have nothing to re- 
commend them. 

St Pauls language is carefully 
guarded. He does not say ev copart, 
for the Godhead cannot be confined 
to any limits of space; nor owparoe:- 
dés, for this might suggest the un- 
reality of Christ’s human body; but 
coparixds, ‘in bodily wise,’ ‘with a 
bodily manifestation” The relation of 
copartikas to the clause which it quali- 
fies will vary with the circumstances, 
e.g. Plut. Mor. p. 424 8 To pécov 
ov TomiKas GAAa oopaticas héyeo Oat, 
i.e. ‘ratione corporis habita, Athan. 
Exp. Fid. 4 (% p. 81) caparixads eis 
tov ‘Inoovy yéypanrat, i.e. ‘secundum 
corpus, Ptolem. in Epiphan. Haer. 
RERUL 5 Kata pev TO pawdpevov kat 
THMATLKOS extedeia bat avypebn, Orig. Cs 
Cels. ii. 69 dgavj yevea Oat Twparikas, 
ib. Vi. 68 Kai cwparikas ye Aadovpevos, 
Macar. Magn. ili. 14 copartixds yopi- 
Cew tay pabntrar. 

10. kal €oré ev attra] ‘and ye are 
in Him, where éoré should be sepa- 
rated from the following wemAnpope- 
vot; comp. John xvii. 21, Acts xvii. 28, 
True life consists in union with Him, 
and not in dependence on any inferior 
being; comp. ver. 19 ov kparav thy 
Kearny, €& ov K.T.A. 

memAnpopevot| ‘being fulfilled, with 
a direct reference to the preceding 
mAjnpopa; ‘Your fulness comes from 
His fulness; His wAnpopa is trans- 
fused into you by virtue of your in- 
corporation in Him? So too John 
i. 16 é€k Tov mAnp@paros avrov. jpeis 
mavres é\dBopev, Ephes. iii. 19 va mAn- 


AT fox] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


183 


> A ’ oe \ , la c) 
€fovglas “EV @ Ket TEpLETMYNONTE TEPLTOMN aXELDO- 


pwOnre cis may TO TANP@UA TOD C6cod, 
ly. 13 eis perpov nAtxias Tov mAnpdpa- 
tos Tov Xpiorov, comp. Ign. Lphes. 
init. t7 evdAoynuevn ev peyeber Ccod 
marpos mAnpopart. Hence also the 
Church, as ideally regarded, is called 
the mAnpopa of Christ, because all [is 
graces and energies are communicated 
to her; Ephes. i. 23 77s eoriv ro odpa 
avTov, TO TANPwWa TOU Ta TMavTAa ey TA- 
ow mAnpovupevov. 

és] For the various reading 6 see 
the detached note. It was perhaps a 
correction made on the false suppo- 
sition that év aird referred to the 
7wAnpopa. At all events it must be re- 
garded as an impossible reading; for 
the image would be altogether con- 
fused and lost, if the wAjpwpya were 
represented as the head. And again 
7 Kecbady is persistently said elsewhere 
of Christ; i. 18, ii. 19, Ephes. i. 22, 
iv..15, v. 23.. Hilary de Zrin: ix. 8 
(11. p. 264) explains the 6 as referring 
to the whole sentence 6 eivat ev avra 
memAnpwpevovs, but this also is an in- 
conceivable sense. Again it has been 
suggested that o €orw (like rouréorw) 
may be taken as equivalent to scilicet 
(comp. Clem. Hom. viii. 22); but this 
would require 77 xedady, even if it 
were otherwise admissible here. 

7 Kearny | The image expresses much 
more than the idea of sovereignty: the 
head is also the centre of vital force, 
the source of all energy and life; see 
the note on ver. 19. 

maons apxis k.7.A.] Sof every prin- 
cipality and power,’ and therefore 
of those angelic beings whom the 
false teachers adopted as mediators, 
thus transferring to the inferior mem- 
bers the allegiance due to the Head: 
comp. ver. 18 sq. For dpyijs kat efov- 
cias, see the note on i. 16. 

11. The previous verses have dealt 
with the theological tencts of the false 
teachers. The Apostle now turns to 
their practical errors; ‘You do not 
need the circumcision of the flesh; 


for you have received the circumcision 
of the heart. The distinguishing fea- 
tures of this higher circumcision are 
threefold. (1) It is not external but 
inward, not made with hands but 
wrought by the Spirit. (2) It divests 
not of a part only of the flesh, but of 
the whole body of carnal affections. 
(3) It is the circumcision not of 
Moses or of the patriarchs, but of 
Christ.” Thus it is distinguished, as 
regards jirst its character, sccondly 
its extent, and thirdly its author. 

mepteTunOnre| The moment at which 
this is conceived as taking place is 
defined by the other aorists, cuvra- 
evtes, ovvnyepOnre, etc., as the time 
of their baptism, when they ‘put on 
Christ.’ 

axetporroujre | i.e. ‘immaterial,’ ‘spi- 
ritual,’ as Mark xiv. 58, 2 Cor. v. 1. 
So xerporoinros, which is used in the 
N. T. of material temples and their 
furniture (Acts vii. 48, xvii. 24, Heb. 
ix. II, 24, comp. Mark JZ. c.), and of the 
material circumcision (Ephes. ii. 11 
THs Neyomevns meptropns ev capKl xet- 
poronrov). In the LXX yewporoinra 
occurs exclusively as a rendering of 
idols (D2, e.g. Lev. xxvi. 1, Is. ii, 
18, etc.) false gods (DNA Is. xxi. 9, 
where perhaps they read pdx), or 
images (B°J19N Ley. xxvi. 30), except in 
one passage, Is. xvi. 12, where it is 
applied to an idol’s sanctuary. Owing 
to this association of the word the 
application which we find in the New 
Testament would sound much more 
depreciatory to Jewish ears than it 
does to our own; e.g. év yetpomrounrots 
karotket in St Stephen’s speech, where 
the force is broken in the received 
text by the interpolation of vaois. 

For illustrations of the typical sig- 
nificance of circumcision, as a symbol 
of purity, see the note on Phil. iii. 3. 

ev tT) k.7.A.| The words are chosen to 
express the completeness of the spiri- 
tual change. (1) It is not an ékdvots 
nor an amddvois, but an dréxdvacs. 


184 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[II. 12 


, > ~ b) / ~ if A 
TONTW, EV TH ATEKOVTEL TOU GDwWMATOS THS oapKos, 
9 ~ a a Lond / a 
€v TH TeptTouN TOV Xpictov, “ouvradevtes avtw ev 


The word dzéxducus is extremely rare, 
and no earlier instances of it are pro- 
duced; see the note on ver. 15 dmexdv- 
cdpevos. (2) Itis not a single mem- 
ber but the whole body, which is thus 
cast aside; see the next note. Thus 
the idea of completeness is brought 
out both in the energy of the action 
and in the extent of its operation, as 
in iii, 9 dmexdvodpevot Tov madavoy 
avOpamoy. 

Tov caparos K.T.A.] ‘the whole body 
which consists of the flesh, i.e. ‘ the 
body with all its corrupt and carnal 
affections’; as iii, 5 vexpwcare ov 
ta péAn. For illustrations of the 
expression see Rom. vi. 6 iva karap- 
69 TO oGpa THs apuaprias, Vil. 24 Tov 
geparos tod Oavarov rovrav, Phil. iii. 
21 TO capa THs Tamewooews TUar. 
Thus ro capa tis capkos here means 
‘the fleshly body’ and not ‘the entire 
mass of the flesh’; but the contrast 
between the whole and the part still 
remains. In i, 22 the same expression 
TO cGpa ths capkos occurs, but with a 
different emphasis and meaning: see 
the note there. 

The words rév auapriay, inserted be- 
tween rod owparos and ris capkés in 
the received text, are clearly a gloss, 
and must be omitted with the vast 
majority of ancient anthorities. 

12. Baptism is the grave of the 
old man, and the birth of the new. 
As he sinks beneath the baptismal 
waters, the believer buries there all 
his corrupt affections and past sins ; 
as he emerges thence, he rises re- 
generate, quickened to new hopes 
and a new life. This it is, because 
it is not only the crowning act of his 
own faith but also the seal of God’s 
adoption and the earnest of God’s 
Spirit. Thus baptism is an image of 
his participation both in the death and 
in the resurrection of Christ. See 
Apost. Const. iii. 17 4 Karddvots TO 


ovvarrobaveiv, 4 dvadvats TO ovvavacTi= 
va. For this twofold image, as it 
presents itself to St Paul, see es- 
pecially Rom. vi. 3 sq. 

ev t@ Bantiouo] ‘in the act of 
baptism. A distinction seems to be 
observed elsewhere in the New Tes- 
tament between Bamricpa ‘baptism’ 
properly so called, and Bamriopos 
‘lustration’ or ‘washing’ of divers 
kinds, e.g. of vessels (Mark vii. 4, [8,] 
Heb. ix. 10), Even Heb. vi. 2 Barz- 
Tigpav O.daxyjs, Which at first sight 
might seem to be an exception to this 
rule, is perhaps not really so (Bleek 
ad loc.). Here however, where the 
various readings Bazricuo and Bar- 
tiowart appear in competition, the 
preference ought probably to be 
given to Bamricu@ as being highly 
supported in itself and as the less 
usual word in this sense. There is 
no a@ priort reason why St Paul 
should not have used Bamricpos with 
this meaning, for it is so found in Jo- 
sephus Ant. xvili. 5. 2 Bamricpo cuv- 
cevat (Of John the Baptist). Doubtless 
the form Bar7i.ca was more appro- 
priate to describe the one final and 
complete act of Christian baptism, 
and it very soon obtained exclusive 
possession of the ground in Greek ; 
but in St Paul’s age the other form 
Barricpos may not yet have been 
banished. In the Latin Version bap- 
tisma and baptismus are used indis- 
criminately: and this is the case also 
with the Latin fathers. The substan- 
tive ‘baptism’ occurs so rarely in any 
sense in St Paul (only Rom. vi. 4, Eph. 
iv. 5, besides this passage), or indeed 
elsewhere in the N. T. of Christian 
baptism (only in 1 Pet. iii. 21), that 
we have not sufficient data for a 
sound induction, So far as the two 
words have any inherent difference of 
meaning, Barricpos denotes rather the 
act in process and Bamrriopa the result. 


II. 12] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


185 


a ~ & \ Vd A an) / 
To ParTicuM, év w Kal cuvnyEepEnTE Cia THS TicTEWS 
- 5 vod ~ r) , \ o 
Tis évepyeias TOV Qeov Tov éyelpavTos avTov ex | THV | 


12, TO Bamrtlopmare 


ev @| i.e. Barricuo. Others would 
understand Xpior@ for the sake of 


i 


the parallelism with ver. 11 & @ 
kat...€v @ kai. But this parallelism is 
not suggested by the sense: while on 
the other hand there is obviously a 
very close connexion between cuvta- 
gevres and ovynyepOnre as the two 
complementary aspects of baptism; 
comp. Rom. vi. 4 sq. cvveradnpev 
avT@ Oia tov Banticpatos iva domep 
ny€pOn Xpioros...ovT@s Kat Hpeis...€ 
yap cvupuros yeyovapev TH Opormpare 
Tov @Oavatov avrov, aA\a kal THS 
dvactacews éooueba, 2 Tim. ii. 11 
ei yap cuvareOdvopey, kat cuv(n- 
gopev. In fact the idea of Xpiore 
must be reserved for ovynyéepOnre 
where it is wanted, ‘ye were raised 
together with Him? 

dua tis miorews KT.A.] ‘through 
your faith in the operation, évepyeias 
being the objective genitive. So St 
Chrysostom, ricrews Sov eoriv’ emi- 
aTevoate ore OvvaTat 6 Oeos eyeipat, 
kal outws nyépOnte. Only by a belief 
in the resurrection are the benefits of 
the resurrection obtained, because 
only so are its moral effects produced. 
Hence St Paul prays that he may 
‘know the power of Christ’s resurrec- 
tion’ (Phil. iii. 10), Hence too he 
makes this the cardinal article in the 
Christian’s creed, ‘ If thou...believest 
in thy heart that God raised Him 
from the dead, thou shalt be saved’ 
(Rom. x, 9). For the influence of 
Christ’s resurrection on the moral and 
spiritual being, see the note on Phil. 
lic. Others take ris évepyeias as the 
subjective genitive, ‘faith which comes 
from the operation etc.,’ arguing from 
a mistaken interpretation of the par- 
allel passage Ephes. i. 19 (where xara 
Tnv évépyecay should be connected, not 
with rovs morevovras, but with ri rd 


vmepBadrov péyeOos k.t.A.). The former 
explanation however yields a better 
sense, and the genitive after mioris 
far more commonly describes the ob- 
ject than the source of the faith, e.g. 
Rom. iii. 22, 26, Gal. iii. 22, Ephes. iii. 
12, Phil. i. 27, iii. 9, 2 Thess. ii. 13. 

13. In the sentence which follows 
it seems necessary to assume a change 
of subject. There can be little doubt 
that o Geds is the nominative to cuv- 
e(woroinaev: for (1) The parallel pas- 
sage Ephes. ii. 4,5 directly suggests 
this. (2) This is uniformly St Paul’s 
mode of speaking elsewhere. It is 
always God who éyeipe:, ovveyeipes, 
(worotet, cvvCworrotei, etc., with or in 
or through Christ. (3) Though it might 
be possible to assign otv avré to the 
subject of cvve(worroincev (see the note 
on i. 20), yeta reference to some other 
person is more natural. These reasons 
seem to decide the subject of cvvetw- 
oroingey. But at the same time it 
appears quite impossible to continue 
the same subject, 6 Geos, to the end of 
the sentence. No grammatical mean- 
ing can be assigned to dmexdvadpevos, 
by which it could be understood of 
God the Father. We must suppose 
therefore that a new subject, o Xpuc- 
ros, is introduced meanwhile, either 
with jpxev or with drexdvcduevos it- 
self ; and of the two the former seems 
the easier point of transition. Fora 
similar instance of abrupt transition, 
which is the more natural owing to the 
intimate connexion of the work of the 
Son with the work of the Father, see 
e.g. i. 17 8q. 

kat vpas] i.e. you Gentiles’ This 
will appear from a study of the 
parallel passages iii. 7,8, Ephes. i. 13, 
IE AAG. TE, 03517, 22, i, 2; iv. “17's 
see the notes on Ephes. i, 13, and on 
TH dkpoBvaria just below. 


186 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[II. 13 


nn \ A A ~ , 
vexpov’ S’kal vuas vexpous dyTas Tols TapaTTwWUacW 

\ lon 9 ? ~ \ € > / 
Kal TH dkpoPvaTia THS TapKos VuwY, TUVECwoTroLnoEY 


Tots wapaTT@pacey k.T.A.] ‘by reason 
of your transgressions etc. The ma- 
pantopara are theactual definite trans- 
gressions, while the axpoBvoria rhs 
capxos is the impure carnal disposition 
which prompts to them. For the da- 
tive comp. Ephes. ii. 1, 5, where the 
same expression occurs; see Winer 
Gramm. § xxxi. p. 270. On the other 
hand in Rom. vi. 11 vexpods pev tH 
apapria, (avras dé TH Ges, the dative 
has a wholly different meaning, as the 
context shows. The éy of the received 
text, though highly supported, is doubt- 
less an interpolation for the sake of 
grammatical clearness. 

TH axpoBvoria x.7.A.] The external 
fact is here mentioned, not for its own 
sake but for its symbolical meaning. 
The outward uncircumcision of the 
Gentiles is a type of their unchastened 
carnal mind. In other words, though 
the literal meaning is not excluded, 
the spiritual reference is most promi- 
nent, as appears from ver. II ev T7 
amexSvoet TOU awparos. Hence Theo- 
dore’s comment, dxpoBvcriay (éxade- 
oev) TO TepiketoOa ere THY OvnToTNTA. 
At the same time the choice of the 
expression shows that the Colossian 
converts addressed by St Paul were 
mainly Gentiles. 

cuveCworoinagev| It has been ques- 
tioned whether the life here spoken of 
should be understood in a spiritual 
sense of the regeneration of the moral 
being, or in a literal sense of the fu- 
ture life of immortality regarded. as 
conferred on the Christian potentially 
now, though only to be realised here- 
after. ‘But is not such an issue alto- 
gether superfluous ? Is there any rea- 
son to think that St Paul would have 
separated these two ideas of life? To 
him the future glorified life is only 
the continuation of the present moral 
and spiritual life. The two are the 
same in essence, however the accidents 


may differ. Moral and spiritual rege- 
neration is salyation, is life. 

vpas| The pronoun is repeated for 
the sake of emphasis. The omission 
in some good copies is doubly ex- 
plained ; (1) By the desire to simplify 
the grammar ; (2) By the wish to re- 
lieve the awkwardness of the close 
proximity between vpas and 7piv. This 
latter consideration has led a few 
good authorities to substitute nas for 
vas, and others to substitute vpiy for 
nuiv. For instances of these emphatic 
repetitions in St Paul see the note on 
i. 20 SV avroo. 

avv avt@| ‘ with Christ,’ as in Ephes. 
il. 5 cuve(woroincey TG Xpiora. On 
the inadmissibility of the reading aird 
see the note on els avrov i. 20. 

xaptoduevos] ‘having forgiven, as 
in Luke vii. 42 sq., 2 Cor. ii. 7, 10, 
xii. 13, Ephes. iv. 32; see also the note 
on iii. 13 below. The idea of sin as a 
debt incurred to God (Matt. vi. 12 ra 
opeAnpata nuov, comp. Luke xi. 4) 
underlies this expression, as it does 
also the commoner term for pardon, 
adeous ‘remission.’ The image is 
carried out in the cancelled bond, 
ver. 14. 

npiv] The person is changed; ‘not 
to you Gentiles only, but to us all 
alike” St Paul is eager to claim his 
share in the transgression, that he 
may claim it also in the forgiveness. 
For other examples of the change 
from the second to the first person, 
see i. 1O—13, iii. 3, 4, Ephes. ii. 2, 3, 
13, 14, iv. 31, 32, v. 2 (the correct 
reading), 1 Thess. v. 5, where the mo- 
tive of the change is similar. See also 
Gal. iii. 25, 26, iv. 5, 6, where there is 
the converse transition. 

14. eé&adrecivras] ‘having cancelled, 
The word éefareipew, like duaypadery, 
signifying ‘to blot out, to erase,’ is 
commonly opposed to éyypadew ‘to 
enter a name, etc”; e.g, Arist. Pag 


Lier] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


187 


€ = > La , eon if \ / 
UMaS GOV AUT, YaPITaMEVOS HMiy TAaVTa Ta TAapaTTw- 

> \ ~ / on 
pata, “*éfadeinbas TO Kal’ nuwv yelpoypapoy Tois 


1181, Lysias c. Nicom. p. 183, Plato 
Resp. vi. p. 501 B. More especially is 
it so used in reference to an zéem in 
an account, e.g. Demosth. c. Aristog. 
i. p. 791 €yypdpovrae wavres of opAt- 
oxdvortes...e€adnAurTat TO OPAnpa. 

TO Ka par x.7A.] ‘the bond stand- 
ing against us.’ The word xerpoypa- 
gov, which means properly an auto- 
graph of any kind, is used almost ex- 
clusively for a note of hand, a bond or 
obligation, as having the ‘ sign-manual’ 
of the debtor or contractor : e.g. Tobit 
Vv. 3 (comp. ix. 5) éOwxev avt@ Td xetpo- 
ypapoy, Plut. Mor. p. 829 A rev xeLpo- 
ypapwv Kat oviBoraiwy. It is more 
common in Latin than in Greck, e.g. 
Cic. Fam. vii. 18 ‘ Misi cautionem chi- 
rographi mei,’ Juv. Sat. xvi. 41 ‘ De- 
bitor aut sumptos pergit non reddere 
nummos, Vana supervacui dicens 
chirographa ligni’ (comp. xiii. 137). 
Hence chirographum, chirographarius, 
are frequent terms in the Roman law- 
books; see Heumann-Hesse Hand- 
lexicon zu den Quellen des rémischen 
Rechts 3.v. p. 74. 

In the case before us the Jewish 
people might be said to have signed 
the contract when they bound them- 
selves by a curse to observe all the 
enactments of the law (Deut. xxvii. 
14—26; comp. Iixod. xxiv. 3); and 
the primary reference would be to 
them. But nyiv, juodv, seem to in- 
clude Gentiles as wellas Jews, so that 
a wider reference must be given to 
the expression. The ddypzara there- 
fore, though referring primarily to the 
Mosaic ordinances, will include all 
forms of positive decrees in which 
moral or social principles are embo- 
died or religious duties defined ; and 
the ‘bond’ is the moral assent of the 
conscience, which (as it were) signs 
and seals the obligation. The Gen- 
tiles, though ‘not having a law, are a 
law to themselves,’ ofrives evdeikvuvTac 


TO €pyov TOU voHOV YpamToy ev Tais 
KapOlais avTav, oUppapTupovVEnNs 
avTay tis guveonoews, Rom. ii, 14, 15. 
Sce the notes on Gal. ii. 19, iy. 11. 
Comp. Orig. Hom. in Gen. xiii. 4 (1. 
p- 96). 

Tois Odypacw] ‘consisting in ordi- 
nances’: comp. Ephes. ii. 15 roy vopov 
Tay evtohav ev Sdypaow. The word 
Soyua is here used in its proper sense 
of a ‘decree,’ ‘ ordinance,’ correspond- 
ing to doypzati¢erGe below, ver. 20. 
This is its only sense in the N. T.; 
e.g. Luke ii. 1, Acts xvii. 7, of the 
emperor's decrees ; Acts xvi. 4 of the 
Apostolic ordinances. Here it refers 
especially to the Mosaic law, as in 
Joseph, Ant. xv. 5. 3 ra kad\\uora tov 
Soypdtav Kal Ta OoiwTaTa TaV ev ToIs 
vopos, Philo Leg. All. i. 16 (1 p. 54) 
dvatnpyots Tov ayioy Soyparev, 3 Macc. 
i. 3 tov matpiay Soyparwv. Comp. 
Iren. Fragm. 38 (p. 855 Stieren) where, 
immediately after a reference to our 
text, rois tdv “IovSaiwy doypact mpoo- 
épxyec9a. iS opposed to mvevpatixds 
Aecroupyeiv. In the parallel passage, 
Ephes. ii. 15, this is the exclusive 
reference; but here (for reasons ex- 
plained in the last note) it seems best 
to give the term a secondary and 
more extensive application. 

The dative is perhaps best explained 
as governed by the idea of yeypap- 
pévoy involved in ye:poypapoy (comp. 
Plat. Zp. vii. p. 243 A Ta yeypappéva 
turots); aS in I Tim. ii. 6 ro paprvprov 
kaipois idiows, Where xatpois depends 
on an implied pepzaprupnpévory. Other- 
wise it is taken as closely connected 
with xa@ nay, ‘the bond which was 
in force against us by reason of the 
ordinances’: see Winer § xxxi. p. 273, 
A. Buttmann p. 80. Possibly an év 
has dropped out of the text before 
rois Soypaow, owing to the similar 
ending yelporpaponen (comp. Ephes. 
ii. 15); ‘but, if so, the omission must 


188 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[Il. 14 


ely) SY y eon A ’ \ > 
Soyuaciv, O Vv UmevavTiov HMivs Kal avTO npKEeV €ék 


date from the earliest age, since no 
existing authorities exhibit any traces 
of such a reading; see the note on 
ver. 18 & édpaxev, and comp. Phil. ii. 
I et Tis omAdyxva. 

A wholly different interpretation 
however prevails universally among 
Greek commentators both here and 
in Ephes. ii. 15. They take rots doy- 
pacw, ev Soypacw, to mean the ‘ doc- 
trines or precepts of the Gospel, and 
so to describe the instrument by 
which the abrogation of the law was 
effected. So Chrysostom, Severianus, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theo- 
doret, followed by the later commen- 
tators Cicumenius and Theophylact. 
Strangely enough they do not allude 
to the correct interpretation; nor (with 
the exception of the passage ascribed 
to Irenzeus which is quoted above) 
have I found any distinct traces of it 
in any Greek father. The grammati- 
cal difficulty would be taken to favour 
this interpretation, which moreover 
was characteristic of the age when 
the battle of creeds was fought. But 
it has been universally abandoned by 
modern interpreters, as plainly inap- 
propriate to the context and also as 
severing the substantive doyua here 
from the verb doypari¢ewin ver. 20. The 
Latin fathers, who had either decretis 
or sententiis in their version, were 
saved from this false interpretation ; 
e.g. Hilar. de Trin. i. 12 (II. p. Io), 
ix. 10 (II. p. 265 sq.), Ambros. Apol. 
Dav. 13 (1. p. 698), de Fid. iii, 2 (11. 
p. 499), August. de Pecc. Mer. i. 47 
(x. p. 26): though they very commonly 
took trois Soypacw, ev Sdypaciw, to 
refer to the decree of condemnation. 
Jerome however on Ephes. ii. 15 
(vit. p. 581) follows the Greeks. The 
later Christian sense of doyua, mean- 
ing ‘ doctrine,’ camefrom its secondary 
classical use, where it was applied to 
the authoritative and categorical ‘sen- 
tences’ of the philosophers: comp. 
Just. Mart. Apol. i. 7 (p. 56 D) of ev 


"EdAnot Ta avrois dpecta Soypatioavres 
€k Tavros TO Evi ovopate idocodias 
mpocayopevovtat, kaimep Tay Soypatov 
evavriov ovrwv, Cic. Acad. ii. 9 ‘de 
suis decretis quae philosophi vocant 
ddypara, Senec. Lpist. xcv. 10 ‘Nulla 
ars contemplativa sine decretis suis 
est, quae Graeci vocant dogmata, nobis 
vel decreta licet adpellare vel scita 
vel placita’ See the indices to Plu- 
tarch, Epictetus, etc., for illustrations 
of the use of the term. There is an 
approach towards the ecclesiastical 
meaning in Ignat. Magn. 13 BeBao- 
Ojva é€v trois Soypacw tov Kupiov kat 
Tov droato\wy, Barnab. § I tpia ovy 
Odypara €ariy Kupiov (comp. § 9, 10). 
o nv K.T.A.] ‘which was directly op- 
posed to us.” The former expression, 
To xa@’ npoyv, referred to the validity 
of the bond; the present, 6 jv vmevav- 
tiov npiv, describes its active hostility. 
It is quite a mistake to suppose that 
the first preposition in vmevavtios 
mnitigates its force, as in vrodndwats, 
UmoNevKOS, Umopaivouat, vroonpaivery, 
etc. Neither in classical writers nor 
in the Lxx has the word any shade of 
this meaning. It is very commonly 
used, for instance, of things which are 
directly antagonistic and mutually 
exclusive: e.g. Aristot. de Gen. 
et Corr. i. 7 (p. 323) Anuoxpiros... 
gnot...rd avTd Kal Gpotoy eivat TO TE 
mowouv Kat TO TacxoV...€oikace O€ of 
ToUTOV Toy Tpdomov A€yorTes VmevayTia 
(i.e. self-contradictory) daiverOa dé- 
yew" airioy dé rhs éevavriodoyias K.T.A., 
[Plato] Alcib. Sec. 138 ¢@ 3. To pai- 
verOar dpa vmevavriov cot Soxet TH 
dpovety; AA. Idvy pév ovv...139 B 3Q. 
Kal pny dvo ye vrevavria évi mpaypare 
mos ay ein; (i.e. how can one thing 
have two direct opposites?), where 
the whole argument depends on this 
sense Of vmevavrios. In compounds 
with vo the force of the preposition 
will generally be determined by the 
meaning of the other element in the 
compound; and, as évayrios (évavre) 


II; 15] 


oo , b A onl o 
TOU METOU, TPOTHAWGAS AUTO TH TTAVPW 


implies locality, a local sense is commu- 
nicated to vd. Thus vmevaytios may 
be compared with vmadAdocew, v- 
mavray, vravtiatev, vmotpexew (Xen. 
Cyrop. i. 2. 12 Anotas vrodpapsiv ‘to 
hunt down’), vmedavvew (Xen. Anab. 
i. 8.15 UmeAdoas ws ovvavtjcat, ‘riding 
up’), vpioravas (Polyb.i. 50 6 Un€arn- 
oe THY €avTOv vaty ayTimpwpoy Tots 
sroAepiors,‘ he brought up’ his own ship). 
With this meaning, ‘over against,’ 
‘close in upon,’ the preposition does 
not weaken but enhance the force of 
evavtios, so that the compound will 
denote ‘ direct,’ ‘ close, or ‘ persistent 
opposition.’ 

kal avro ypkev K.t.A.] ‘and He, i.e. 
Christ, hath taken it away” There 
is a double change in this clause: (1) 
The participles (yapioapevos, efadei- 
vas) are replaced by a finite verb. 
(2) The aorists (cuvefworoincer, xa- 
pioapevos, é€adeiWas) are replaced by 
a perfect. The substitution of 7pev 
for 7jpxev in some copies betrays a 
consciousness on the part of the scribes 
of the dislocation produced by the 
new tense. As a new subject, o 
Xpiotos, must be introduced some- 
where (see the note on ver. 13), the 
severance thus created suggests this 
as the best point of transition. The 
perfect jpxev, ‘He hath removed it, 
is suggested by the feeling of relief 
and thanksgiving, which rises up in 
the Apostle’s mind at this point. For 
the strong expression atpew éx [rod] 
péoov, ‘to remove and put out of 
sight, comp. Lxx Is. lvii. 2, Epictet. 
iii. 3. 15, Plut. Mor. p. 519 D; so 2 
Thess. ii. 7 €k pécou yévnrat. 

mpoondocas k.t.A.| ‘ The abrogation 
was even more emphatic. Not only 
was the writing erased, but the do- 
cument itself was torn up and cast 
aside” By mpoondwoas is meant that 
the law of ordinances was nailed to 
the cross, rent with Christ’s body, 
and destroyed with His death : see 
tho notes on Gal. vi. 14 Ov od [rod 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


189 


15 GqreKOU- 


atavpov] euot Kdopos (the world, the 
sphere of material ordinances) éorav- 
peta Kdy® xdope, Where the idea is 
the same. It has been supposed that 
in some cities the abrogation of a 
decree was signified by running a 
nail through it and hanging it up in 
public. The image would thus gain 
force, but there is no distinct evi- 
dence of such a custom. 

15. dmexdvoduevos «.t.r.] This 
word appears not to occur at all be- 
fore St Paul, and rarely if ever after 
his time, except in writers who may 
be supposed to have his language be- 
fore them; e.g. Hippol. Hacer. 1p 24 
dmrexOucdmevov TO capa 6 meptKeirat. 
In Joseph. Ant. vi. 14. 2 dzexdds is 
only a variation for perexdds which 
seems to be the correct reading. The 
word also appears in some texts of 
Babrius Fad. xviii. 3, but it is merely 
a conjectural emendation. Thus the 
occurrence of dwexdvecOa here and in 
iii. 9, and of déxdvors above in ver. IT, 
is remarkable; and the choice of an 
unusual, if not a wholly new, word 
must have been prompted by the de- 
sire to emphasize the completeness of 
the action. The force of the double 
compound may be inferred from a pas- 
sage of Lysias, where the two words 
drobvecOa and éxdverGac occur toge- 
ther; c. Theomn. i. 10 (p. 117) da- 
oxoy Oo.yarioy arodedvcbat 7} Tov XiTO- 
vioxoy exdedvaba. Here however the 
sense of dmexduvcdpuevos is difficult. 
The meaning generally assigned to it, 
‘having spoiled, stripped of their 
arms,’ disregards the middle voice. 
St Jerome is chiefly responsible for 
this common error of interpretation: 
for in place of the Old Latin ‘ exuens 
se, which was grammatically correct, 
he substituted ‘exspolians’ in his re- 
vised version. In his interpretation 
however he was anticipated by the 
commentator Hilary, who read ‘exu- 
ens’ for ‘exuens se’ in his text. Dis- 
carding this sense, as inconsistent with 


190 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [ET ang 
, \ > \ \ \ > (3 ’ 35 , 
TaMEVOS TAS apyas Kal Tas efougias ederypati- 
the voice, we have the choice of two Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodo- 
interpretations. ret. This also appears to have been 


(1) The common interpretation of 
the Latin fathers, ‘putting off the 
body,’ thus separating drexOuoapevos 
from ras apxas x.7.A. and understand- 
ing rv cdpka Or To copa With it; comp. 
2 Cor. v. 3 évdvodpevor. So Novat. de 
Trin. 16 ‘exutus carnem’; Ambros. 
Expos. Luc. v. § 107 (I. p. 1381) ‘ex- 
uens se carnem,’ comp. de id. iii. 
2 (iL. p. 499); Hilar. de Trin. i. 13 
(11. p. 10) ‘exutus carnem’ (comp. ix. 
10, p. 265), x. 48 (p. 355) ‘spolians 
se carne’ (comp. ix. II, p. 265); Au- 
gustin. Hpist. 149 (I. p. 513) ‘ exuens 
se carne,’ etc. This appears to have 
been the sense adopted much earlier 
in a Docetic work quoted by Hippol. 
Haer. viii. 10 ux éxeivn €v TO oodpare 
tpadeioa, arexdvoaunern TO copa kal 
mpocnAooaca pos TO EvAov Kat Oprap- 
Bevoaoak.r-rA. It is so paraphrased 
likewise in the Peshito Syriac and the 
Gothic. The reading drexdvodpevos 
THY gapka kai Tas e€ovaias (omitting 
tas dpxyas kat), found in some an- 
cient authorities, must be a corrup- 
tion from an earlier text, which had 
inserted the gloss rjv oapxa after 
amexdvodpevos, While retaining ras 
dpxas kai, and which seems to have 
been in the hands of some of the La- 
tin fathers already quoted. This in- 
terpretation has been connected with 
a common metaphorical use of dzo- 
SvecOa, signifying ‘to strip’ and so 
“to prepare for a contest’; e.g. Plut. 
Mor. 811 E mpos macay arodvopevor 
THY TwoAuTiKyy mpaéwv, Diod. Sic. ii. 29 
emt dirocodiay amoduvtes. ‘The seri- 
ous objection to this rendering is, that 
it introduces an isolated metaphor 
which is not explained or suggested 
by anything in the context. 

(2) The common interpretation of 
the Greek fathers; ‘ having stripped 
of and put away the powers of evil, 
making dmexdvodpevos govern tas ap- 
xas x.7.A. So Chrysostom, Severianus, 


the interpretation of Origen, in Jatt. 
xii. § 25 (111. p. 544), 2b. § 40 (p. 560), 
in Ioann. vi. § 37 (IV. p. 155), ib. Xx. 
§ 29 (p. 356), though his language is 
not explicit, and though his transla- 
tors, e.g. in Libr. Les. Hom. vii. § 3 
(II. p. 413), make him say otherwise. 
The meaning then will be as follows. 
Christ took upon Himself our human 
nature with allits temptations (Heb. iv. 
15). The powers of evil gathered about 
Him. Again and again they assailed 
Him; but each fresh assault ended 
in a new defeat. In the wilderness 
He was tempted by Satan ; but Satan 
retired for the time baffled and 
defeated (Luke iv. 13 dméorn aw 
avtov dxpt xaipov). Through the 
voice of His chief disciple the temp- 
tation was renewed, and He was 
entreated to decline His appointed 
sufferings end death. Satan was 
again driven off (Matt. xvi. 23 draye 
Omicw pov, Sarava, oxavSadov ef épov : 
comp. Matt. viii. 31). Then the last 
hour came. This was the great crisis 
of all, when ‘the power of darkness’ 
made itself felt (Luke xxii. 53 7 ¢€ov- 
ola Tov oKoTous ; see above i.13), When 
the prince of the world asserted his 
tyranny (Joh. xii. 31 6 Gpyoy rob 
xogpov). The final act in the conflict 
began with the agony of Gethsemane; 
it ended with the cross of Calvary. 
The victory was complete. The enemy 
of man was defeated. The powers of 
evil, which had clung like a Nessus 
robe about His humanity, were torn 
off and cast aside for ever. And the 
victory of mankind is involved in the 
victory of Christ. In His cross we 
too are divested of the poisonous 
clinging garments of temptation and 
sin and death; ro drobéo Bat THY 
Oyrornta, says Theodore, 7 nv vmep THs 
Kowwi}s aceinev evepyeoias, amedvoato 
Kakewov (1.€. TOY dyTeKetpevan dvva- 
peor) THY avOevreiav 7mep éxéxpnvro 


Hy 3] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


19I 


? , U4 ? \ ? ~ 
cev €v mappyoia, OpiapBevoas avtous év avTo. 


caf’ juav.. For the image of the gar- 
ments comp. Is. lxiv. 6, but especially 
Zech. iii. 1 sq.,‘ And he showed me 
Joshua the high-priest standing be- 
fore the angel of the Lord and Satan 
standing at his right hand to resist 
Aim. And the Lord said unto Satan, 
The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan... 
Now Joshua was clothed with filthy 
garments... And He answered and 
spake unto those that stood before 
Him, saying, Take away the filthy gar- 
ments from him. And unto him He 
said, Behold, Z have caused thine ini- 
quity to pass from thee? In this 
prophetic passage the image is used 
of His type and namesake, the Jesus 
of the Restoration, not in his own 
person, but as the high-priest and re- 
presentative of a guilty but cleansed 
and forgiven people, with whom he is 
identified. For the metaphor of azex- 
dvoduevos more especially, see Philo 
Quod det. poi. ims. 13 (I. p. 199) efava- 
oravres de Kat Suepecodpevor Tas evTeX- 
vous aUT@y TepimAoKas evpapas € kOv- 
oc opea, where the image in the con- 
text is that of a wrestling bout. 

This interpretation is grammatical ; 
it accords with St Paul’s teaching ; and 
itis commended by the parallel uses of 
the substantive in ver. I1 év 7H dmex- 
dvoertov ooparostis capkos,and of the 
verb in iil. 9 drexducapevot rov mada 
avOpwrov k.t.A. The dréxdvars accom- 
plished in uswhen we are baptizedinto 
Hisdeath is a counterpart to the azék- 
dvots which He accomplished by His 
death. With Him indeed it was only 
the temptation, with us it is the sin 
as well as temptation; but otherwise 
the parallel is complete. In both 
cases it is a divestiture of the powers 
of evil, a liberation from the dominion 
of the fiesh. On the other hand the 
common explanation ‘ spoiling’ is not 
less a violation of St Paul’s usage 
(iii. 9) than of grammatical rule. 

ras apyas k.t.A.] What powers are 
especially meant here will appear from 


Ephes. vi. 12 mpos ras dpxas, mpos Tas 
eoucias, mpos Tous Koo pokparopas TOU 
oxoTovs TOUTOU, pos Ta MVEVPAaTKa TS 
movnpias k.7.A. See the note on i, 16. 

edevryparicev] ‘displayed, as a vic- 
tor displays his captives or trophies in 
a triumphal procession: Hor. Lpist. 
1.17. 33 ‘ captos ostendere civibus hos- 
tes” The word is extremely rare; 
Matt. i. 19 ur O€d@v avryy Sevrypatioat 
(where it ought probably to be read 
for the more common word mapadery- 
patioa), Act. Paul. et Petr. 33 édeye 
mpus Toy Aady iva pw povov amo THs TOU 
Zipwvos andrns Piywow GAAG Kai Sery- 
paticovow avtov. Nowhcre does the 
word convey the idea of ‘making an 
example’ (rapaderyparicat) but signi- 
fies simply ‘to display, publish, pro- 
claim.’ In the context of the last 
passage we have as the consequence, 
Gore wavras tovs evAaBeis avdpas Bbe- 
AvrreaOat Sipwva roy payov Kat avda.oy 
avrov katayyéAX eur, ie. to proclaim 
his impieties. The substantive occurs 
on the Rosetta stone 1. 30 (Boeckh 
C. I. 4697) rév ovvrereheopevay ra 
mpos Tov Serypatiopov Ouaopa. 

é€v mappnaia] ‘boldly,’ not ‘ publicly. 

$ rappnoia is ‘unreservedness, plain- 
ness of speech’ (zav-pyoia, its opposite 
being dppncia ‘silence’), so while 
applied still to language, it may be 
opposed either (1) to ‘fear,’ as John 
Vil. 13, Acts iv. 29, or (2) to, ‘am- 
biguity, reserve,’ Joh. xi. 14, xvi. 
25,29; but ‘misgiving, apprehension’ 
in some form or other seems to be 
always the correlative idea. Hence, 
when it is transferred from words to 
actions, it appears always to retain 
the idea of ‘ confidence, boldness’; eg. 
1 Mace. iv. 18 Anwere Ta oKvAa pera 
mappyias, Test. xii Patr. Rub. 4 ovr 
etxov Tappyoiav arevicat eis mporwmoy 
*IaxoB, Jos. Ant. ix. 10. 4m aioxuvns 
Te TOU oupBEByKoTos Setvod Kal Tov py- 
kér’ adt@ mappyoiay civar. ‘The idea of 
publicity may sometimes be connected 
with the word as a secondary notion, 


192 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[II. 16 


16 NJ 7) > e lo , b) / eet) , aN 
74 OUV TIS UMass KPLVETW eV Bowoe K@l €V TOCGEL H 


16. 7 €v mocet. 


e.g. in Joh. vii. 4, where ev mappyoia 
eivac ‘to assume a bold attitude’ is 
opposed to é€v kpumt@ moveiy (comp. 
xviii. 20); but it does not displace the 
primary sense. 

OptapBevoas| ‘leading them in tri- 
unuph, the same metaphor asin 2 Cor. 
ii. 147@ mavrore OprapBevovre nyas ev 
T@ Xpior@ k.T.A.. Where it is wrongly 
translated in the A.V. ‘ causeth us to 
triumph.’ Here however it is the de- 
feated powers of evil, there the sub- 
jugated persons of men, who are led 
in public, chained to the triumphal 
car of Christ. This is the proper 
meaning and construction of @p:ap- 
Beveww, as found elsewhere. This verb 
takes an accusative (1) of the person 
over whom the triumph is celebrated, 
eg. Plut. Vit. Arat. 54 rovrov Aiwiduos 
€OprapBevoe, Thes. e¢ Rom. Comp. 4 
Baorrets eOpiauBevoe : (2) of the spoils 
exhibited in the triumph, e.g. Tatian 
c. Graec. 26 mavcacbe doyous adXorpi- 
ovs O@ptapBevortes kal, WomEp 6 KUAoLOS, 
ovk tdtows émtkoopovpevoe mrepois: (3) 
more rarely of the substance of the 
triumph, eg. Vit. Camill. 30 6 Sée 
Kapirddos €OpidapBevoe...rdov droh@dvias 
catipa tratpidos yevopevor, i.e. ‘in the 
character of his country’s saviour.’ 
The passive 6prapBeverOa is ‘to beled 
in triumph,’ ‘to be triumphed over,’ 
eg. Vit. C. Mare. 35. So the Latins 
say ‘triumphare aliquem’ and ‘trium- 
phari.’ 

év a’r@] i.€. r@ oravps: comp. 
Ephes. il. 16 droxaraddaEn Tovs apdo- 
Tépovs.».dua TOU stavpov. The violence 
of the metaphor is its justification. 
The paradox of the crucifixion is thus 
placed in the strongest light—triumph 
in helplessness and glory in shame, 
The convict’s gibbet is the victor’s 
car. 

16—109. ‘Seeing then that the bond 
is cancelled, that the law of ordinances 
is repealed, beware of subjecting your- 
selves to its tyranny again. Suffer no 


man to call you to account in the 
matter of eating or drinking, or again 
of the observance of a festival or a 
new moon or a sabbath. These are 
only shadows thrown in advance, only 
types of things to come. The sub- 
stance, the reality, in every case be- 
longs to the Gospel of Christ, The 
prize is now fairly within your reach. 
Do not suffer yourselves to be robbed 
of it by any stratagem of the false 
teachers. Their religion is an offi- 
cious humility which displays itself in 
the worship of angels. They make a 
parade of their visions, but they are 
following an empty phantom. They 
profess humility, but they are puffed 
up with their vaunted wisdom, which 
is after all only the mind of the flesh. 
Meanwhile they have substituted in- 
ferior spiritual agencies for the One 
true Mediator, the Eternal Word. 
Clinging to these lower intelligences, 
they have lost their hold of the Head; 
they have severed their connexion 
with Him, on whom the whole body 
depends; from whom it derives its 
vitality, and to whom it owes its unity. 
being supplied with nourishment and 
knit together in one by means of the 
several joints and attachments, so that 
it grows with a growth which comes 
from God Himself’ 

16 sq. The two main tendencies of 
the Colossian heresy are discernible 
in this warning (vv. 16—19), as they 
were in the previous statement (vv. 9 
—15). Here however the order is 
reversed. The practical error, an ex- 
cessive ritualism and ascetic rigour, 
is first dealt with (vv. 16, 17); the 
theological error, the interposition of 
angelic mediators, follows after (vv. 
18,19). The first is the substitution 
of a shadow for the substance; the 
second is the preference of an inferior 
member to the head. The reversal of 
order is owing to the connexion of the 
paragraphs; the opening subject in 


II. 17] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


193 


> , € ~ aX / x / 17 i eee. a 
€v pepe EopTHs 9 veounvias 7 caBBatov, a éotw oKd 


17. 68 éoTw cKid. 


the second paragraph being a conti- 
nuation of the concluding subject in 
the first, by the figure called chiasm: 
comp. Gal. iv. 5. 

Kpivérw] not ‘condemn you, but 
‘take you to task’; as e.g. Rom. xiv. 
3. sq. The judgment may or may not 
end in an acquittal; but in any case 
it is wrong, since these matters ought 
not to be taken as the basis of a judg- 
ment. 

ev Bowoe x.rAr.] ‘in eating and 
in drinking’; Rom. xiv. 17 ov ydp 
€otw 1 Bacireia Tov Geod Bpacis Kai 
moots, GAAG Sixatocvvn x.T.A., Heb. ix. 
10 ém Bpwpacw kal mopaow kai d:a- 
opos Bamticpois, Stkaiwpata capKos, 
comp. I Cor. viii. 8 Bpdya dé nuas ov 
mapaotnoe TO Ged w.t.A. The first 
indication that the Mosaic distinctions 
of things clean and unclean should be 
abolished is given by our Lord Him- 
self: Mark vii. 14 sq. (the correct read- 
ing in ver. 19 being xaOapiCwy mavra ra 
Bpdpara). They were afterwards form- 
ally annulled by the vision which ap- 
peared to St Peter: Acts x. 11 sq. 
The ordinances of the Mosaic law 
applied almost exclusively to meats. 
It contained no prohibitions respect- 
ing drinks except in a very few cases; 
e.g. of the priests ministering in the 
tabernacle (Ley. x. 9), of liquids con- 
tained in unclean vessels etc, (Lev. 
xi. 34, 36), and of Nazarite vows 
(Num. vi. 3). These directions, taken 
in connexion with the rigid obser- 
vances which the later Jews had 
grafted on them (Matt. xxiii. 24), 
would be sufficient to explain the ex- 
pression, when applied to the Mosaic 
law by itself,as in Heb. 1.c. The rigour 
of the Colossian false teachers how- 
ever, like that of their Jewish proto- 
types the Essenes, doubtless went far 
beyond the injunctions of the law. It 
is probable that they forbad wine and 
animal food altogether: see the intro- 
duction pp. 86, 104 sq. For allusions 


COL. 


in St Paul to similar observances not 
required by the law, see Rom. xiv. 2 
6 5€ agOevav Adyava éoGiet, Ver. 21 Ka- 
Aov to py hayeiv Kpéa pyde mei oivoy 
k7.A., I Tim. iv. 2, 3 KcoAvovter...die- 
xeoOa Bpwpdrwy a o Peds ExTivey k.T.AX., 
Tit. i. 14 py mpooéyovres...evtodais 
avOporav...mavra kabapa Tots Kabapois. 
The correct reading seems to be xat 
ev wocet, thus connecting together the 
words between which there is a natu- 
ral affinity. Comp. Philo Vit, Moys. 
i. § 33 (IL p. 110) deomoivais yaderais 
ouvetevypevov Bpwoe Kat moo, Ign. 
Trall. 2 08 yap Bpwpdrey kai moray 
elolv Staxovot. 

ev pepe] ‘in the matier of, etc.; 
comp. 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3 év TO pepes 
tour». The expression seems origi- 
nally to mean ‘in the division or cate- 
gory,’ and in classical writers most 
commonly occurs in connexion with 
such words as riOévat, moveto Oat, dpi6- 
pet, etce.: comp. Demosth. c. Aristoer. 
§ 148 dca...orpatidtns dv ev apevdo- 
vyrou Kat Widow pépet...€aTparevTat, i.e. 
‘in the capacity of” Hence it gets 
to signify more widely, as here, ‘with 
respect to,’ ‘by reason of’: comp. 
Philo Quod det. pot. ins. § 2 (I. p. 192) 
€v peper AOyou TOU mpokoTTOVvTOS KaTa 
Tov marépa Koopouvra, in Flace. 20 
(II. p. 542) dca év peepee xapitos Kat do- 
peas €AaBov. But Mlian V. Z. viii. 3 
Kpivovtes ExaoTov €v TO péper ovov, 
quoted by the commentators, is a false 
parallel: for dovov is there governed 
by kpivovres and ev 76 peépec Means ‘in 
his turn.’ 

éopris x.7.A.| The same three words 
occur together, as an exhaustive enu- 
meration of the sacred times among 
the Jews, in 1 Chron. xxiii. 31, 2 Chron. 
ii. 4, xxxi. 3, Ezek. xlv. 17, Hos. ii. 11, 
Justin Dial. 8, p. 226; comp. ls. i. 13, 
14. See also Gal. iv. 10 jpyépas mapa- 
typeiabe Kal pivas Kat Karpovs Kal <vi- 
avrovs, where the first three words 
correspond to the three words used 


13 


194 


on \ \ ~ ~ a“ 
TwV MéeANCYTWY, TO dé THNa Tov Xpiorov. 


here, though the order is reversed. 
The éopry here, like the xapoi there, 
refers chiefly to the annual festivals, 
the passover, pentecost, etc. The veo- 
pnvia here describes more precisely 
the monthly festival, which is there 
designated more vaguely as pipes. 
The cdSBara here gives by name the 
weekly holy-day, which is there indi- 
cated more generally by jepat. 

veounvias] See Num. xxviii. 11 sq. 
The forms veounvia and voupnvia seem 
to be used indifferently in the common 
dialect, though the latter is more 
common. In the Attic vovynvia alone 
was held to be correct; see Lobeck 
Phryn. p. 148. On the whole the 
preference should perhaps be given 
to veounvias here, as supported by 
some authorities which are generally 
trustworthy in matters of orthography, 
and as being the less usual form in 
itself. 

caBBarev| ‘a sabbath-day,’ not, as 
the A. V., ‘sabbath days’; for the co- 
ordinated words €oprijs, veounvias, are 
in the singular. The word od®Sata 
is derived from the Aramaic (as dis- 
tinguished from the Hebrew) form 
NNW, and accordingly preserves the 
Aramaic termination in a. Hence it 
was naturally declined as a plural 
noun, cd8Bara, caBBarwr. The gene- 
ral use of ca88ara, when a single sab- 
bath-day was meant, will appear from 
such passages as Jos, Ant. i. I. I dyo- 
pev THY npepav, mpoaayopevovres avTHY 
odBBara, ib. iii. 10, 1 €Bdouny nyépay 
Aris odBBara xadeira, Plut. Mor. 
169 0 “Iovdatoc caBBarav dvtwy ev 
dyvaprrots kabeCopevot, 1b. 671 F otuat be 
kal THv Tov caBBatev éoptyy py TmavTa- 
macw ampocdiovucoy eiva, Hor. Sat. 
i. 9. 69 ‘hodie tricesima sabbata.’ In 
the New Testament ca8fara is only 
once used distinctly of more than a 
singlé day, and there the plurality of 
meaning is brought out by the at- 
tached numeral; Acts xvil. 2 ei caB- 
Bara rpia. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[II. 18 


18 undels 


On the observance of days and sea- 
sons see again Gal. iv. 10, Rom. xiv. 
5,6. A strong anti-Judaic view on the 
subject is expressed in the Zpist. ad 
Diogn.§ 4. Origen c. Cels. viii. 21, 22, 
after referring to Thucyd. i. 70 pyre 
€optiy GAXo Tt HyetoOat TO Ta S€ovTa 
mpaéat, SAYS 6 TéAELos, det ev Tois AOd- 
yols @y Kal Tois €pyots Kai Tois Stavon- 
pact ToD TH piaet Kupiov Adyou Gecod, 
dei €or. avrov év Tais nuepas Kal det 
aye Kuptakas nyépas, and he then goes 
on to explain what is the wapackxeun, 
the mdcyxa, the wevrnxootn, of such a 
man. The observance of sacred times 
was an integral part of the old dispen- 
sation. Under the new they have 
ceased to have any value, except as a 
means to an end. The great principle 
that ‘the sabbath was made for man 
and not man for the sabbath, though 
underlying the Mosaic ordinances, 
was first distinctly pronounced by our 
Lord. The setting apart of special 
days for the service of God is a con- 
fession of our imperfect state, an 
avowal that we cannot or do not de- 
vote our whole time to Him. Sab- 
baths will then ultimately be super- 
seded, when our life becomes one 
eternal sabbath. Meanwhile the Apo- 
stle’s rebuke warns us against attri- 
buting to any holy days whatever a 
meaning and an importance which is 
alien to the spirit of the New Covenant. 
Bengel on the text writes, ‘ Sabba- 
tum non laudatur, non imperatur ; 
dominica memoratur, non praecipitur. 
Qui profundius in mundi negotiis hae- 
rent, his utilis et necessarius est dies 
definitus: qui semper sabbatizant, 
majori libertate gaudent.’? Yes: but 
these last are just they who will most 
scrupulously restrict their liberty, so 
as dmpockorrot yiver Oat. 

17. Two ideas are prominent in 
this image. (1) The contrast between 
the ordinances of the Law and the 
teaching of the Gospel, as the shadow 
and the substance respectively; Philo 


II. 18] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


195 


umas KkataBpaBevéTw OeXAwy é€v TaTEWoppocivy Kal 


de Conf. ling. 37 (I. p. 434) vopicavras 
Ta pev pyTa TOY xpyopLeY okLas Tas 
Ocavel coparey eiva, Joseph. B. J. 
ii. 2. 5 oxtav airnoopevos Bacideias 
qs Wpracev éavt@ TO copa; comp. 
Philo in Flace. 19 (11. p. 541) oxia mpay- 
Hdtwv ap’ joay, ov mpaypara. (2) The 
conception of the shadow as thrown 
before the substance (7 d¢ oxua mporpé- 
Xet TOU a@paros, says a Greek commen- 
tator), so that the Law was a type and 
presage of the Gospel; Heb. x. I oxcav 
éxav O vouos Tov peAAOvTa@Y ayabay 
(comp. viii. 5). Thus it implies both 
the unsubstantiality and the super- 
session of the Mosaic ritual. 

a] ‘which things, whether dis- 
tinctions of meats or observances of 
times. If the other reading 6 be ta- 
ken, it will refer to the preceding 
sentence generally, as if the antece- 
dent were ‘the whole system of ordi- 
nances.’ 

To 6€ capa k.t.A.] As the shadow 
belonged to Moses, so ‘the substance 
belongs to Christ’; i.e. the reality, 
the antitype, in each case is found in 
the Christian dispensation. Thus the 
passover typifies the atoning sacrifice; 
the unleavened bread, the purity and 
sincerity of the true believer; the 
pentecostal feast, the ingathering of 
the first fruits; the sabbath, the rest 
of God’s people; ete. 

18. The Christian’s career is the 
contest of the stadium (dpopos, Acts 
xx. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 7); Christ is the 
umpire, the dispenser of the rewards 
(2 Tim. iv. 8); life eternal is the bay 
wreath, the victor’s prize (8paBeior, 
1 Cor. ix. 24, Phil. iii. 14). The Co- 
lossians were in a fair way to win this 
prize; they had entered the lists duly ; 
they were running bravely: but the 
false teachers, thrusting themselves in 
the way, attempted to trip them up 
or otherwise impede them in the race, 
and thus to rob them of their just 
reward. For the idea of xaraSpa- 
Beverw compare especially Gal. y. 7 


erpexere kada@s* Tis vpas evexoev 
K.T.A. 

kataBpaBevéra] ‘rob of the prize, 
the BpaBeiov’; comp. Demosth. Zid. 
p- 544 (one of the documents) émora- 
peOa Stpatrwva tro Meidiov kataBpa- 
Bev@évra kal mapa mavta ta Sixaa 
atizwbevra, which presents a close 
parallel to the use of xaraSpaBeveuw 
here. See also Eustath. on JI. i. 403 sq. 
(p. 43) xaraBpaBever avrov, os pacw 
of mada, ib. Opusc. 277, etc. The 
false teachers at Colossz are not re- 
garded as umpires nor as successful 
rivals, but simply as persons frustrat- 
ing those who otherwise would have 
won the prize. The word caraBpaBeveuw 
is wide enough to include such. The 
two compounds xaraSpaBevew and ma- 
paBpaBevew (Plut. Mor. p. 535 © of 
mapaBpaBevoytes ev Tois ayaor) only 
differ in this respect, that deprivationis 
the prominent idea in the former word 
and trickery in the latter. Jerome, 
Epist, cxxi ad Alqgas, (1. p. 879), sets 
down this word, which he wrongly 
interprets ‘bravium accipiat adversum 
vos,’ as one of St Paul’s Cilicisms. 
The passages quoted (whether the 
document in the Midias be authentic 
or not) are sufficient to show that 
this statement is groundless. 

bdwv ev] ‘taking delight in) ‘ de- 
voting himself to’? The expression 
is common in the Lxx, most frequently 
as a translation of “2 YSN, 1 Sam. 
XViii. 22, 2 Sam. xv. 26, 1 Kings x. 9, 
2)-Chren. ix: (8,.Ps.: xi.) 1, exivi:/ 10; 
but in one passage of “2 3%, 
1 Chron. xxviii. 4. So too Zest. xii 
Patr. Asher 1 éay oty 4 ux OéAn 
ev kako. Comp. also 1 Mace. iv: 42 
GeAntras vdpuov, and see eGedoOpnokeia 
below. Against this construction no 
valid objection has been urged. Other- 
wise OeAwv is taken absolutely, and 
various senses have been assigned to 
it, such as ‘imperiously’ or ‘ design- 
edly’ or ‘wilfully’ or ‘gladly, readily’; 
but these are either unsupported by 


13—2 


196 


- 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[II. 18 


7 ~ > / ed, Ve > , 7, A 
OpnoKeia TWV ayyEeAwyV, a EOpaKEV éuBarevwr, €lKn Gbu- 


usage or inappropriate to the context. 
Leclere (ad loc.) and Bentley (Crit. 
Sacr. p. 59) conjectured @Ayav; Toup 
(Emend. in Suid. 1. p. 63) more plau- 
sibly <Adav; but the passages quoted 
show that no correction is needed. 

tarevvoppocvvn| Humility is a vice 
with heathen moralists, but a virtue 
with Christian Apostles; see the note 
on Phil. ii. 3. In this passage, which 
(with ver. 23) forms the sole exception 
to the general language of the Apo- 
stles, the divergence is rather appa- 
rent than real. The disparagement is 
in the accompaniments and not in the 
word itself. Humility, when it be- 
comes self-conscious, ceases to have 
any value; and self-consciousness at 
least, if not affectation, is implied by 
6éXwv ev. Moreover the character of 
the rarewvodpoovrn in this case is fur- 
ther defined as 9pnoxeia ray ayyédor, 
which was altogether a perversion of 
the truth. 

Opnokeia] This word is closely con- 
nected with the preceding by the vin- 
culum of the same preposition. There 
was an officious parade of humility in 
selecting these lower beings as inter- 
cessors, rather than appealing di- 
rectly to the throne of grace. The 
word refers properly to the external 
rites of religion, and so gets to sig- 
nify an over-scrupulous devotion to 
external forms; as in Philo Quod det. 
pot. ins. 7 (I. Pp. 195) Opnoxeiay avzt 
éovorntos nyovpevos, Plut. Vit. Alex. 
2 Soxei Kai To Opnokevew Gvopa Tais 
katakopots yeveoOat Kal weptepyors 
iepovpyias: comp. Acts xxvi. 5, and 
see the well-known remarks of Cole- 
ridge on James i. 26, 27,in Aids to 
Reflection p. 14. In the Lxx @pn- 
oxevew, Opnoxeia, together occur four 
times (Wisd. xi. 16, xiv. 16, 18, 27), 
and in all these examples the refer- 
ence is to idolatrous or false worship. 
Indeed generally the usage of the 
word cxhibits a tendency to a bad 
sense, 


tav ayyédov] For the angelology 
and the angelolatry of these Colossian 
false teachers, more especially in its 
connexion with Essene :teaching, see 
the introduction, pp. 89 sq., IOI sq., 
110,115 8q. For the prominence which 
was given to angelology in the specu- 
lations of the Jews generally, see the 
Preaching of Peter quoted in Clem. 
Alex. Strom. vi. 5 (p. 760) pndé xara 
"Jovdaious o€BeaGe, Kal yap ékeivor... 
ovk eémiotavrat AatTpevortes ayyédors 
kal dpyayyéAors, Celsus in Orig. c. Cels. 
v. 6 (1. p. 580) mparov ody Trav "Iovdaiey 
Cavpatew aiov, ei Tov pév ovpavoy kat 
Tous ev THE ayyedous cEeBovar «K.T.X., 
comp. 7b. i. 26 (p. 344). From Jews 
it naturally {spread to Judaizing 
Christians; e.g. Clem. Hom. iii. 36 
dyycAav ovopata yvepitety, Vili. 12 8q., 
Test. xii Patr. Levi 3 (quoted above 
on i. 16). The interest however ex- 
tended to more orthodox circles, as 
appears from the passage in Ignat. 
Trail. 5 py ov Sivapa ta érovpana 
yeaa ;...d0vayar voeivy ta émovpavia 
kal tas tomoGecias Tas dyye\tKas Kal 
Tus TvoTaceELs Tas dpxovTiKds K.T-A. (SEC 
the note there). Of angelology among 
Gnostic sects see Iren. ii. 30. 6, ii. 32. 
5, Orig. c. Cels. vi. 30 sq. (I. p. 653), 
Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. p. 970 8q., 
Pistis Sophia pp. 2, 19, 23, ete. 

& édpaxey k.7.A.] literally ‘invading 
what he has seen, which is generally 
explained to mean ‘parading’ or ‘por- 
ing over his visions.’ For this sense of 
éuBarevew, which takes either a geni- 
tive or a dative oran accusative, comp. 
Philo de Plant. Noe ii. 19 @ p. 341) 
oi Tpogarepe X@povrtes TaV emorn- 
pov kal emt méov euBarevovtes avrais, 
2 Mace. ii. 30 TO pev euBarevovres kal 
Tept mavT@y moveiaOat Aoyov Kal moAv- 
mpaypoveiy év Tois Kata pépos. At a 
later date this sense becomes com- 
mon, e.g. Nemesius de Nat. Hom. 
p. 64 (ed. Mattheei) ovpavoy éuBarever 
ty Oewpia. In Xen, Symp. iv. 27 év 
TO alT@ BiBrle duporepor euBarevere 


II 19] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 197 
TLOUMEVOS UTO TOU VOOS TIS GapKos avTOU, Kal ov 
ri, the reading may be doubtful. But first and last passages more especially 


though & éopaxev singly might mean 
‘his visions, and én3arcveyv ‘ busying 
himself with,” the combination ‘ inva- 
ding what he has scen, thus inter- 
preted, is so harsh and incongruous 
as to be hardly possible; and there 
was perhaps some corruption in the 
text prior to all existing authorities 
(see the note on Piil. ii. 1 for a par- 
allel case). Did the Apostle write 
espa (OY aidpa) kevenBarevor ? In this 
case the existing text aew@pakeNnem 
BATEYWN might be explained partly 
by an attempt to correct the form 
éépa into aispa or conversely, and 
partly by the perplexity of transcribers 
when confronted with such unusual 
words. This reading had suggested 
itself to me independently without 
the knowledge that, so far as regards 
the latter word, it had been ant ick 
pated by others in the conjecture a 
édpa (or a édpaxey) keveuBarevav. The 
word xevepBareiv ‘to walk on empti- 
ness,’ ‘to tread the air’ and so meta- 
phorically (like depo8areiv, aidepoBa- 
tev, aidcpeuareiv, etc.) ‘to indulge in 
vain speculations,’ is not an uncommon 
word. For its metaphorical sense espe- 
cially see Plut. Mor. p. 336 F ovtaws épéepu- 
Berto xevepBarodyv Kat opaddopevoy ir’ 
dvapxlas To péyeOos adris, Basil. Op. 
I. Pp. 135 Tov vodyv...uvpia mdavnbevra 
kal mo\Aa KeveyBatycavta k.T.A., 20. I. 
p. 596 cov O€ pr KeveuBareira oO vous, 
Synes. de Insomn. p. 156 ovre yap xe- 
veuBatovvras Tovs Adyous e&jveyxar. 
Though the precise form xeveuBarevew 
does not occur, yet it is unobjection- 
able in itself. For the other word 
which I have ventured to suggest, 
ewpa or aidpa, see Philo de Somn. ii. 6 
(1. p. 665) drorudovpevos tr ai- 
dpas Ppevav kal kevovd dvonparos, 2d. 
§ 9 (p. 667) tiv em aiawpas hopoupe- 
vnv kevipy Soéav, Quod Deus immut. 
§ 36 (1. p. 298) domep én’ aiwpas ti- 
vos Yrevdots cat aBeBaiov ddEns popet- 
ofa xata Kkevod Baivovra. The 


present striking parallels, and show 
how germane to St Paul’s subject 
these ideas of ‘suspension or ba- 
lancing in the air’ (éépa or aidpa) 
and ‘treading the void’ (keveparevew) 
vould be, as expressing at once the 
spiritual pride and the emptiness of 
these speculative mystics; see also de 
Somn. ii. 2 (p. ce eppaivera Kal TO 
mS Kevijs doEns, ep 1s ws ed appa, 
ia 70 Kovdor dvaBaiven, puoe- 
pPeevos Kal eeTE@POY HOPNKOS EaUTOV. 
The substantive, éapa or aidpa, is used 
sometimes of the instrument for sus- 
pending, sometimes of the position of 
suspension. In this last sense it de- 
scribes the poising of a bird, the float- 
ing of a boat on the waters, the ba- 
lancing on a rope, and the like. Hence 
its expressiveness when used as a me- 
taphor. 

In the received text a negative is 
inserted, & pr édpaxey éyBarevav. 
This gives a very adequate sense ‘7n- 
tr udliz ng tnto those things which he 
has not seen’; od yap eidey adyyédous, 
says Chrysostom, kal otra didkeirat ws 
idev: comp. Ezek. xiii. 3 ovat rots mpo- 
gnrevovow amd kapdias aitav Kal To 
xaOdXov p17) BAéerovow. But, though 
the difficulty is thus overcome, this 
cannot be regarded as the original 
reading of the text, the authorities 
showing that the negative was an after 
insertion. See the detached note on 
vérious readings. 

For the form édpaxev, which is bet- 
ter supported here than édpakey, see 
the note on ii. 1. 

elxy pucrovpevos | ‘vainlypuyedup. 
Their profession of humility was a 
cloke for excessive pride: for, as 
St Paul says elsewhere (1 Cor. viii. 
I), yroots dvowot. It may be ques- 
tioned whether eix7 should be con- 
nected with the preceding or the fol- 
lowing words. Its usual position in 
St Paul, before the words which it 
qualifies (Rom. xiii. 4, 1 Cor. xv. 2, 


198 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[II. 19 


KpaTwv THY Kepariy, €€ OU TaVv TO TWMA Oia THY apwv 


Gal. iv. 11; there is an exceptional 
reason for the exceptional position in 
Gal. iii. 4), points to the latter con- 
struction. 

Tod voos K.7A.] ‘the mind of his 
flesh, i.e. unenlightened by the Spirit ; 
comp. Rom. viii. 7 TO Ppovnpa tis 
capkos. It would seem that the 
Apostle is here taking up some watch- 
word of the false teachers. They 
doubtless boasted that they were di- 
rected vd rov voos. Yes, he answers, 
but it is 6 vois Tis wapKos vpov. Com- 
pare Rey. ii. 24, where the favourite 
Gnostic boast ywooxew ta Babéa is 
characterized by the addition of rod 
Sarava (see Galatians p. 298, note 3). 
Comp. August. Conf: x. 67 ‘Quem 
invenirem qui me reconciliaret tibi? 
Ambiendum mihi fuit ad angelos? 
Qua prece? quibus sacramentis? 
Multi conantes ad te redire, neque 
per se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, ten- 
taverunt haec et inciderunt in deside- 
rium curiosarum visionum et digni 
habiti sunt illusionibus. Elati enim 
te quaerebant doctrinae fastu, etc.’ 

19. ov xparav] ‘not holding fast, 
This is the most common construction 
and meaning of xpareiy in the New 
Testament; e.g. Mark vii. 8 dgévres 
THY évToAny Tov Ocod KpaTeire THY 
mapadoow Tay avOpareav; comp. Cant. 
iii. 4 evpov ov Hyamnoev 7 Wuxn pov, 
expatnoa avrov kal ovK apjKa avror. 

tiv kepadny]| ‘the Head’ regarded 
as a title, so that a person is at once 
suggested, and the relative which 
follows is masculine, ¢€ ob; comp. the 
parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 16 os €orw 
4 kepadn, Xpiords €& ov may TO copa 
xkt.A. The supplication and worship 
of angels is a substitution of inferior 
members for the Head, which is the 
only source of spiritual life and energy. 
See the introduction pp. 34, 78, 101 
Sq., II5 sq. 

dua tov adayv xt.r.] ‘through the 
junctures and ligaments.’ Galen, when 
describing the structure of the human 


frame, more than once specifies the 
elements of union as twofold: the 
body owes its compactness partly to 
the articulation, partly to the attach- 
ment; e.g. Op. I. p. 734 (ed. Kihn) 
éott O€ O Tpomos THS GuVOETEws aUTaV 
durrés kata yévos, 6 ev erepos Kata 
apOpoy, o d€ erepos kata oUppvery. 
Similarly, though with a more general 
reference, Aristotle speaks of two 
kinds of union, which he describes 
as agdy ‘contact’? and aipudvors 
‘cohesion’ respectively ; Metaph. iv. 4 
(p. 1014) Siapeper de ovppuars ais” 
évOa pev yap ovbev mapa THY adry erepov 
dvaykn etvat, ev dé Tous oupmepurooy 
€otl te év TO avTo €v ayo 6 ToLet 
avtt tov amtecOat cupmeduxevat kal 
eivat évy x.t.d.. Phys. Ause. iv. 6 (p. 
213) rovrots ady é€otw* ovpdvois de, 
dtav apd evepyeta ev yévovtat (comp. 
ib. V. 3, p. 227), Metaph. x. 3 (p. 1071) 
doa éeotiv apy Kal py ovpgdvoe. The 
relation of contiguous surfaces and 
the connexion of different parts to- 
gether effect structural unity. This 
same distinction appears in the A- 
postle’s language here. Contact and 
attachment are the primary ideas in 
agai and oivvdecpor respectively. 

Of the function of ag7, ‘ contact,’ in 
physiology (rept apis ris €v rots puat- 
cots) Aristotle speaks at some length 
in one passage, de Gen. et Corr. i. 6 
(p. 322 sq.) It may be mentioned, 
as illustrating St Paul’s image, that 
Aristotle in this passage lays great 
stress on the mutual sympathy and 
influence of the parts in contact, de- 
scribing them as 7aOnrixa Kal mountixa 
and as xivnrika kal KwyTa vm adAnov. 
Elsewhere, like St Paul here, he uses 
the plural ai adat; de Caelo i. 11 (p. 
280) TO dvev Pbopas Ore pev bv ore be 
p17) OV, tov Tas apa s, OTL avev TOU pci- 
pecOat mporepov ovaat Vorepov ovK clair, 
de Gen. et Corr. i. 8 (p. 326) ovre yap 
Kata Tas adas evdéyerar Suevar dia 
ray Siahavaey ovre Sia Tov Topeay, tb, 


§ 9 (p. 327) ef yap SiaxpiverOar dvvarat 


II. 19] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


199 


\ ld ? , ‘ / : 
Kal ovoEecuwy eémrxopnyoupevov Kal cuv3iBaComevov 


kata Tas adds, oomep daci riwes, Kav 
pyre 7 Sinpnuevov, €orar Sunpynpévor’ 
duvarov yap dSiatpe9nvac: comp. [ Plat.] 
Axioch. p. 365 A ouvetheypevoy ras 
adas kal TG copate popadéov. It is 
quite clear from these passages of 
Aristotle, more especially from the 
distinction of apai and sopor, that ai 
agai are the joinings, the junctures. 
When applied to the human body 
they would be ‘ joints” provided that 
we use the word accurately of the re- 
lations between contiguous limbs, and 
not loosely (as it is often used) of the 
parts of the limbs themselves in the 
neighbourhood of the contact. Hip- 
pocrates indeed used ddai as a physio- 
logical term in a different sense, em- 
ploying it as a synonyme for dypara 
i.e. the fasciculi of muscles (see Galen 
Op. xIx. p. 87), but this use was quite 
exceptional and can have no place 
here. Thus ai dda: will be almost a 
synonyme for 7a dp6pa, differing how- 
ever (1) as being more wide and com- 
prehensive, and (2) as not emphasizing 
so strongly the adaptation of the 
contiguous parts. 

The considerations just urged seem 
decisive as to the meaning of the 
word. Some eminent modern critics 
however explain ai apai to be ‘the 
senses,’ following Theodoret on Ephes. 
iv. 16 apyny b€ tHy aicOnaw mpoonyo- 
pevoer, erretdy) Kal avTn pla Tay mévTe 
aicOjcewv, Kal amd Tov pépous TO Trav 
evopace. St Chrysostom had led the 
way to this interpretation, though his 
language is less explicit than Theo- 
doret’s. To such a meaning how- 
ever there are fatal objections. (1) 
This sense of addy is wholly unsup- 
ported. It is true that touch lies at 
the root of all sensations, and that 
this fact was recognised by ancient 
physiologists: e.g. Aristot. de Anim. 
i. 13 (p. 435) dvev pev yap ddifjs ovde- 
piay evdexerat GdAnv aicOnow éxew. But 
here the connexion ends; and unless 
more cogent examples not hitherto ad- 


ducedare forthcoming, we are justified 
in saying that ai adai could no more 
be used for ai aicOnoes, than in 
English ‘ the touches’ could be taken 
as a synonyme for ‘the senses.’ (2) The 
image would be seriously marred by 
such a meaning. The ddai and oip- 
decuot would no longer be an ex- 
haustive description of the elements 
of union in the anatomical structure ; 
the conjunction of things so incon- 
gruous under the yvinculum of the 
same article and preposition, 1a ray 
apav Kat ovvdécpor, would be un- 
natural; and the intrusion of the 
‘senses’ would be out of place, where 
the result specified is the supply of 
nourishment (és:yopyyovpevoy) and the 
compacting of the parts (cvrBiBaco- 
pevoy). (3) All the oldest versions, the 
Latin, the Syriac, and the Memphitic, 
explain it otherwise, so as to refer in 
some way to the connexion of the 
parts of the body; e.g. in the Old 
Latin it is rendered neaus here and 
junctura in Ephes. iv. 16. 

avvdéecpor] ‘bands, ‘ligaments.’ The 
Greek ovvdecpos, like the English ‘liga- 
ment,’ hasageneral andaspecial sense. 
Initsgeneral and comprehensive mean- 
ing it denotes any of the connecting 
bands which strap the body together, 
such as muscles or tendons or liga- 
ments properly so called; in its special 
and restricted use it is a ‘ligament’ 
in the technical sense; comp. Galen 
Op. Iv. p. 369 ovvdecpos yap éeoriy, 6 
yoor idiws, ov Kowds dvopaopevos, od- 
pa veuvpades €€ doTod pev dppopmevor 
mavtws Siareuxos Sé 7 eis dato 3) cis 
pov. OF the cvvdecpor or ligaments 
properly so called Galen describes at 
length the several functions and uses, 
more especially as binding and holding 
together the diapépeces; Op. 1. 236, 
II. 268, 739, Ill. 149, Iv. 2, etc., comp. 
Tim. Locr. de An. Mund. p. 557 ovv- 
O€opos motTay kivacw Tots vevpots 
auvawe ta apOpa (Opusc. Mythol. ete. 
ed. Gale). In our text indeed ouw-~ 


200 


EPISTLE TO TITE COLOSSIANS. 


[II. 20 


af) aa A of ve n an 20 > b] , \ aa 
auEee Tiv avEnsw Tov Qeou. *et ameGaveTe ovy Xpig To 


Secuor must be taken in its compre- 
hensive sense; but the relation of the 
apat to the ovvdeopor in St Paul still 
remains the same as that of the d:ap- 
Opaécets to the cvydeopor in Galen. 

emtxopnyovpevoy k.t.A.] The two func- 
tions performed by the adai and ovv- 
decpor are first the supply of nutri- 
ment etc. (émiyopnyovpevov), and se- 
condly the compacting of the frame 
(cvvBiBacopevov). In other words 
they are the communication of life 
and energy, and the preservation of 
unity and order. The source of all (e& 
ov) is Christ Himself the Head; but 
the channels of communication (dia 
Tov k.t.A.) are the different members 
of His body, in their relation one to 
another. For éemtyopnyovpevor ‘bounti- 
fully furnished’ see the note on Gal. 
iii. 5. Somewhat similarly Aristotle 
speaks of capa KaAdora meduKos Kal 
kexopnynuevov, Pol. iv. I (p. 1288). 
For examples of yopyyia applied to 
functions of the bodily organs, see 
Galen. Op. 1. p. 617 év rais elamvoais 
xopnyla uxpas motornros, Alex. Probl. 
i. 81 TO mAcioroy THs Tpopns eEvdapov- 
Pevov Xopnyetrat mpos yeveolv Tov ma- 
Oouvs. For cvvBiBaCopevoy, ‘joined to- 
gether, compacted,’ see the note on 
ii. 2. In the parallel passage, Ephes. 
iv. 16, this part of the image is more 
distinctly emphasized, cvvappodroyovpe- 
vov kat ovvBiBatopevov. The difference 
corresponds to the different aims of 
the two epistles. In the Colossian 
letter the vital connexion with the 
Head is the main theme; in the 
Ephesian, theunity in diversity among 
the members. 

avéeu tv avénow x.t.r.] By the two- 
fold means of contact and attach- 
ment nutriment has been diffused and 
structural unity has been attained, 
but these are not the ultimate result ; 
they are only intermediate processes ; 
the end is growth. Comp. Arist. 
Metaph. iv.4(p.1014)avénow éxer 8 


fag ~ ‘ , 
€répov TS aTTET Oat kal cunTEpUKE- 


vat,..dvapéper dé cvppvots adjs,where 
growth is attributed to the same two 
physiological conditions as here. 

tov Gcov| ie. ‘which partakes of 
God, which belongs to God, which 
has its abode in God?” Thus the finite 
is truly united with the Infinite; the 
end which the false teachers strove 
in vain to compass is attained; the 
Gospel vindicates itself as the true 
theanthropism, after which the human 
heart is yearning and the human in- 
tellect is feeling. See above, p. 117 
sq. With this conclusion of the sen- 
tence contrast the parallel passage 
Iphes. iv. 16 ryv avénow rod oaparos 
woveiTat eis oiKoOopnY EavToOU ev 
ayamn, Where again the different 
endings are determined by the dif- 
ferent motives of the two epistles. 

The discoveries of modern physi- 
ology have invested the Apostle’s 
language with far greater distinctness 
and force than it can have worn to 
his own contemporaries. Any expo- 
sition of the nervous system more 
especially reads like a commentary on 
his image of the relations between the 
body and the head. At every turn 
we meet with some fresh illustration 
which kindles it with a flood of light. 
The volition communicated from the 
brain to the limbs, the sensations of 
the extremities telegraphed back to 
the brain, the absolute mutual sym- 
pathy between the head and the 
members, the instantaneous paralysis 
ensuing on the interruption of con- 
tinuity, all these add to the com- 
pleteness and life of the image. But 
the following passages will show how 
even ancient scientific speculation was 
feeling after those physiological truths 
which the image involves; Hippocr. 
de Morb. Sacr. p. 309 (ed. Foese) xara 
Taira vopi¢w tov eyxepadoy dvvamy 
mrelorny exew ev To avOpar@...oi dé 
opOarpoi Kai ta ovata kat 7 yAdooa 
kat ai yeipes Kal of modes, ola Gy 6 éyKé- 
gatos ywooky, ToLadTa VmnpETOUt... 


II. 20] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


201 


>’ \ a 7 -~ ‘2 , e crn > , 
aqvvo TWYV TTOLVELWY TOU KOTKOV, Tl WS C@yvTeEs EV KOO HMw 


es O€ THY oivEeoW G eykeparos €or oO 
duayyehrov.. Ocore pnp Tov eyxepadoy 
eivat Tov épanvevovra my over, ai Oe 
Ppéves GdAws Gvopa Exovot TH TUYN 
KekTnLevov...Acyovat SE Tives Ws Hpove- 
omev TH KapOin Kal TO GvL@pEVOY TOUTO 
€ott kai TO Gpovrifov’ To S€ ovx ovTas 
exet...THs...pporyawos ovderépw pérec- 
Tw GAA mavTwy TovTéwy Oo eyxépados 
airios €oTwv...mpatos aicOdverat o ey- 
Képados Tav €v TH TwpaTL EvEdVTV 
(where the theory is mixed up with 
some curious physiological specula- 
tions), Galen. Op. I. 235 avros O€ o 
éykeparos Ore pev apxi ToLs vevpots 
aract THs Suvapeds corw, évapyas 
eudboper.. smorepoy d€ ws avros Tots 
vevpors, ovT@ €xeivo mad erepov Tt 
Hoptoy _ ET UmeMTrEL, FY myn tls avray 
early, ér’ adnAov, ib. IV. p. II apx7) pev 
yap auToy G. @. Tay veupov) 6 0 eyxepados 
cor, kat Ta 7aGn eis avrov Hepet, oLov 
eis dpoupdyv twa rhs NoyaTiKHs Wuxis" 
expuois & évrevbev, oiov mpéuvov Tivos 
eis SevSpov aynkovros péya, 6 vetiatos 
€oTt pveAds...cvptray 0’ oUT@ TO Topa 
petahapBaver O¢ avtav mparns pev Kal 
Hadtota Kwncews, emt tavtn 8 aicbn- 
gews, XIV. p. 313 avtn yap (i.e. 7 
keadn) kaOdmep tis axporoNis ere TOU 
ooparos Kal TOY TipiwTaT@Y'Kal avay- 
kaoTatov dvOparos aicOncewy oiknTH- 
prov. Plato had made the head the 
central organ of the reason (Tim. 69 
sq.: see Grote’s Plato m1. pp. 272, 
287, Aristotle 11. p. 179 sq.), if in- 
deed the speculations of the Timzeus 
may be regarded as giving his serious 
physiological views; but he had postu- 
lated other centres of the emotions 
and the appetites, the heart and the 
abdomen. Aristotle, while rightly re- 
fusing to localise the mind as mind, 
had taken a retrograde step physio- 
logically, when he transferred the 
centre of sensation from the brain to 
the heart; e.g. de Part. Anim. ii. 10 
(p. 656). Galen, criticizing his pre- 
decessors, says of Aristotle d7Ads éort 
KATEyVOKOS ev aro (i.e. TOU eyKeda- 


Aov) TeA€ay axpnotiav, havepds S spo- 
Aoyety aidovpevos (Op, UL. p. 625). The 
Stoics however (Zyjvev Kat Xpvourmos 
dua to ohetép@ Xopo mayTi) were even 
worse oifenders ; and in reply to them 
more especially Galen elsewhere dis- 
cusses the question rorepov éyxehados 
i) Kapdia THY apxny exer, Op. V. p. 213 
sq. Bearing in mind all this diversity 
of opinion amongancient physiologists, 
we cannot fail to be struck in the 
text not only with the correctness of 
the image but also with the propriety 
of the terms; and we are forcibly 
reminded that among the Apostle’s 
most intimate companions at this time 
was one whom he calls ‘ the beloved 
physician’ (iv. 14). 

20—23. ‘You died with Christ to 
your old life. All mundane relations 
have ceased for you. Why then do 
you—you who have attained your 
spiritual manhood—submit still to 
the rudimentary discipline of children? 
Why do you—you who are citizens of 
heaven—bow your necks afresh to 
the tyranny of material ordinances, as 
though you were still living in the 
world? It isthe same old story again ; 
the same round of hard, meaningless, 
vexatious prohibitions, ‘ Handle not, 
‘Taste not,’ ‘Touch not” What folly! 
When all these things—these meats 
and drinks and the like—are earthly, 
perishable, wholly trivial and unim- 
portant! They are used, and there 
is anend of them. What is this, but 
to draw down upon yourselves the 
denunciations uttered by the prophet 
of old? What is this but to abandon 
God’s word for precepts which are 
issued by human authority and incul- 
cated by human teachers? All such 
things have a show of wisdom, I grant. 
There is an officious parade of re- 
ligious devotion, an eager affectation 
of humility; there is a stern ascetic 
rigour, which ill-treats the body: but 
there is nothing of any real value 
to check indulgence of the flesh.’ 


202 


doymatiCecbe; My avy 


20, From the theological tenets of 
the false teachers the Apostle turns 
to the ethical—from the objects of 
their worship to the principles of 
their conduct. The baptism into 
Christ, he argues, is death to the 
world. The Christian has passed 
away to another sphere of existence. 
Mundane ordinances have ceased to 
have any value for him, because his 
mundane life has ended. They be- 
long to the category of the perishable; 
he has been translated to the region 
of the eternal. It is therefore a denial 
of his Christianity to subject himself 
again to their tyranny, to return once 
more to the dominion of the world. 
See again the note on iii. 1. 

ei dreOavere| ‘if ye diced, when ye 
were baptized into Christ.’ For this 
connexion between baptism and death 
see the notes on ii. I1, iii. 3. This 
death has many aspects in St Pauwl’s 
teaching. It is not only a dying with 
Christ, 2 Tim. ii. 11 ef yap ovvareda- 
vonev ; but itis also a dying to or,from 
something. This is sometimes repre- 
sented as sin, Rom. vi. 2 oirwes amea- 
vowev 7] dpaptia (comp. vv. 7, 8); 
sometimes as self, 2 Cor. V. 14, 15 dpa of 
mavres améOavov...iva of (avTes pnKere 
éavtots (aow; sometimes as the Jaz, 
Rom. vii. 6 carnpynOnyev dao trod vo- 
pov droOavorres, Gal. ii. 19 dia vopov 
von améOavov ; sometimes still more 
widely as the world, regarded as the 
sphere of all material rules and all 
mundane interests, so here and iii. 3 
dmeOavere yap. In all cases St Paul 
uses the aorist dwé@avov, never the 
perfect ré6vnxa ; for he wishes to em- 
phasize the one absolute crisis, which 
was marked by the change of changes. 
When the aorist is wanted, the com- 
pound verb droéyyjckew is used ; when 
the perfect, the simple verb @rjcKecy ; 
see Buttmann Ausf Gramm. § 114. 
This rule holds universally in the 
Greek Testament. 

dro Tov aTotyelov k.T.A.] Le. ‘from 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[II. ar, 22 


pnde yevon pnde Oiryyns *(& 


the rudimentary, disciplinary, ordi- 
nances, whose sphere is the mundane 
and sensuous’: see the note on ver. 
8. For the pregnant expression dzo- 
Oavetv dro comp. Gal. v. 4 xatnpynOnre 
ard Xpicrov (so too Rom. vii. 2, 6), 
2 Cor. xi. 3 Oaph...dwro THs amAornTos, 
and see A. Buttmann p. 277 note. 

SoypariCerbe] ‘are ye overridden 
with precepts, ordinances” In the 
Lxx the verb doyparti¢ew is used seve- 
ral times, meaning ‘to issue a decree,’ 
Esth. iii. 9, 1 Esdr. vi. 33, 2 Mace. x. 
8, xv. 36, 3 Mace. iv. 11. Elsewhere 
it is applied most commonly to the 
precepts of philosophers ; e.g. Justin 
Apol. i. 7 of év “EXXnot ta adrois 
dpeota Soypaticartes ex mavtos TO 
évl ovopatt Ptdkogodias mpocayopev- 
ovrac (comp. § 4), Epict. iii. 7. 17 sq. 
el Oedeis eivar pirocogos...doyparitov 
ra aicxypa. Here it would include 
alike the doypatra of the Mosaic law 
(ver. 14) and the ddypara of the ‘ phi- 
losophy’ denounced above (ver. 8). 
Both are condemned; the one as super- 
seded though once authoritative, the 
other as wholly vexatious and un- 
warrantable. Examples are given in 
the following verse, pa ayn «.7.X. 
For the construction here, where 
the more remote object, which would 
stand in the dative with the active 
voice (2 Mace. x. 8 edoypadricay...r@ 
Tay “lovdatwv €Over), becomes the 
nominative of the passive, compare 
xpnuaricerOa Matt. ii, 12, 22, dcako- 
veioOa. Mark x. 45, and see Winer 
§ xxxix. p. 326, A. Buttmann p. 163, 
Kihner § 378, 1. p. 109. 

21. My ay x.7.A.] The Apostle dis- 
paragingly repeats the prohibitions of 
the false teachers in their own words, 
‘Handle not, neither taste, neither 
touch.’ The rabbinical passages quoted 
in Schéttgen show how exactly St 
Paul’s language reproduces, not only 
the spirit, but even the form, of these 
injunctions. The Latin commenta- 
tors, Hilary and Pelagius, suppose 


1522] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


203 


> i > A la > id \ \ 
COT TAVTA Ets pbopav TH aToxXpncet), KATA Ta 


these prohibitions to be the Apostle’s 
own, thus makingacomplete shipwreck 
of the sense. So too St Ambrose de 
Noe et Arca 25 (1. p. 267), de Abr. i. 
6 (I. p. 300). We may infer from the 
language of St Augustine who argues 
against it, that this was the popular 
interpretation in his day: Hpist. cxix 
(II. p. 512) ‘tanquam praeceptum pu- 
tatur apostoli, nescio quid tangere, 
gustare, attaminare, prohibentis.’ The 
ascetic tendency of the age thus 
fastened upon a slight obscurity in 
the Greek and made the Apostle 
recommend the very practices which 
he disparaged. For a somewhat simi- 
lar instance of a misinterpretation 
commonly received see the note on 
trois Soypaow ver. 14. Jerome how- 
ever (I. p.878) had rightly interpreted 
the passage, illustrating it by the pre- 
cepts of the Talmud. At a still earlier 
date Tertullian, Ady. Mare. vy. 19, 
gives the correct interpretation. 

These prohibitions relate to defile- 
ment contracted in divers ways by 
contact with impure objects. Some 
were doubtless reenactments of the 
Mosaic law; while others would be 
exaggerations or additions of a rigor- 
ous asceticism, such as we find among 
the Essene prototypes of these Colos- 
sian heretics, e.g. the avoidance of oil, 
of wine, or of flesh-meat, the shunning 
of contact with a stranger or a re- 
ligious inferior, and the like; see pp. 
85 sq. For the religious bearing of 
this asceticism, as springing from the 
dualism of these heretical teachers, 
see above, pp. 79, Io4 sq. 

aWn| The difference between dxrec- 
6a and @yyavew is not great, and in 
some passages where they occur toge- 
ther, it is hard to distinguish them : 
e.g. Exod. xix. 12 mpooéyere €avrois Tov 
avaBynvat els TO dpos Kai Oryetv re av- 
Tov" mas 6 dWdpevos Tov dpous Oavdrw 
teevtnoet, Hur. Bacch. 617 ovr ébcyev 
ov 74 bal tua, Arist. de Gen. et Corr. 
1. 8 (p. 326) Ova ri ov yiyverar aWadapeva 


év, wotep VOwp Ueatos stav Oiyn; 
Dion Chrys. Or. xxxiv (IL. p. 50) oi 
& ék mapépyov mpociacw amrtopevor 
povov Tod mpdypatos, BamTep of orrovdys 
Otyyavovres, Themist. Paraphr. 
Arist. 95 ryv dé adny airav anrecba 
Tav aidO@nray dvayKxaiov’ Kal yap Tov- 
vowa avThns €k Tov dmreaOat kai Ory- 
yave.v. But drrecOa is the stronger 
word of the two. This arises from 
the fact that it frequently suggests, 
though it does not necessarily involve, 
the idea of a voluntary or conscious 
effort, ‘to take hold of’—a suggestion 
which is entirely wanting to the co- 
lourless word @ryyaveww; comp. The- 
mist. Paraphr. Arist. 94 7 rév Cowv 
apy Kpiows €ott kat dvTidn us tov Ory- 
yavovros. Hence in Xen. Cyrop.i. 3. 
5 ore oe, ava, Opa, Grav pév Tod aprov 
ayn, eis ovdev THY xeipa arovapevor, 
drav b€ ToUT@Y Tivds Oiyns, evOUs arroKa- 
Gaiper THY xEipa eis TA YELpOpaKTpa k.T.A. 
Thus the words chosen in the Latin Ver- 
sions, tangere for amrec Oa and attamt- 
nare or contrectare for Oryeiv, are un- 
fortunate, and ought to be transposed. 
Our English Version, probably infiu- 
enced by the Latin, has erred in the 
same direction, translating érrecOa 
by ‘touch’ and @yeiv by ‘handle.’ 
Here again they must be transposed. 
‘ Handle’ is too strong a word for ei- 
ther; though in default of a better it 
may stand for amrec@a, which it more 
nearly represents. Thusthe two words 
awn and @/yns being separate in mean- 
ing, yevon may well interpose ; and the 
three together will form a descending 
series, so that, as Beza (quoted in 
Trench WV. 7. Syn. § xvii. p. 57) well 
expresses it, ‘decrescente semper 
oratione, intelligatur crescere super- 
stitio.’ 

On the other hand ayy has been 
interpreted here as referring to the 
relation of husband and wife, as e.g. 
in 1 Cor, vii. I yuvatxos px) arrecbat ; 
and the prohibition would then be 
illustrated by the teaching of the he- 


204 


ENTAAMATA KA] 
retics in 1 Tim. iv. 3 k@\vdvT@y yapeiv. 
But, whatever likelihood there may be 
that the Colossian false teachers also 
held this doctrine (see above, p. 85 sq.), 
it nowhere appears in the context, 
and we should not expect so import- 
ant a topic to be dismissed thus cur- 
sorily. Moreover éryyavevy is used as 
commonly in this meaning as amrecOat 
(see Gataker Op. Crit. p. 79, and ex- 
amples might be multiplied); so that 
all ground for assigning it to anreo- 
6a especially is removed. Both ar- 
recOa and Oryyavey refer to defile- 
ment incurred through the sense of 
touch, though in different degrees ; 
‘Handle not, nor yet taste, nor even 
touch.’ 

22. ‘Only consider what is the real 
import of this scrupulous avoidance. 
Why, you are attributing an inherent 
value to things which are fleeting ; 
you yourselves are citizens of eternity, 
and yet your thoughts are absorbed 
in the perishable.’ 

a] ‘which things, i.e. the meats 
and drinks and other material objects, 
regarded as impure to the touch. The 
antecedent to a is implicitly involved 
in the prohibitions py dy «.7.A. 

éorw eis pOopay] ‘are destined for 
corruption. For similar expressions 
see Acts vill. 20 ein eis amddetay 
(comp. ver. 23 eis yoAnv muxpias Kal 
cuvdecpoy adixias...ovra), 2 Pet. ii. 12 
yeyevnpeva......ets Goow kal Poopay. 
For the word ¢6opa, involving the idea 
of ‘decomposition,’ see the note on Gal. 
vi. 8. The expression here corresponds 
to els dhedpava exGadrerar (éxropeve- 
rat), Matt. xv. 17, Mark vii. 19. 

th dmoxpnoes| ‘in the consuming. 
Comp. Senec. de Vit. beat. 7 ‘in ipso 
usu sui periturum.’ While the verb 
droxpépat is common, the substantive 
dréxpnois is extremely rare: Plut. 
Mor. p. 267 F xaipew rais toravras 
aroxpnoect kal ovoToAais Tay TepiTTaY 
(i.e. ‘by such modes of consuming and 
abridging superfluities’), Dion. Hal. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


AVNACKAATAE 


(Pu22 


TON ANOPOTON’ 
A. R. 3.58 ev azoypnoe: ys polpas. 
he unusual word was chosen for its 
expressiveness: the ypjous here was 
an dmoypnots ; the things could not 
be used without rendering them unfit 
for further use. The subtlety of the 
expression in the original cannot be 
reproduced in any translation. 

On the other hand the clause is 
sometimes interpreted as a continua- 
tion of the language of the ascetic 
teachers ; ‘ Touch not things which all 
lead to ruin by their abuse.” This in- 
terpretation however has nothing to 
recommend it. It loses the point of 
the Apostie’s argument; while it puts 
upon etvar eis POopay a meaning which 
is at least not natural. 

kara x.7.A.] connected directly with 
Vv. 20, 21, so that the words a éorw... 
TH aroxpynoe: are a parenthetical com- 
ment. 

ra evradpara «.7.A.] The absence of 
both preposition and article before 6.- 
dackadias shows that the two words 
are closely connected. They are placed 
here in their proper order ; for évra\- 
para describes the source of authority 
and d:daccadias the medium of com- 
munication. The expression is taken 
ultimately from Isaiah xxix. 13, where 
the words run in the Lxx, paryy be 
oéBovrai pe, OuddoKovres evTadApara av- 
@pdrev kat GtSacxadias. The Evan- 
gelists (Matt. xv. 9, Mark vii. 7), quot- 
ing the passage, substitute in the latter 
clause O.ddcKovres OudacKxadias évTad- 
pata avOparey. 

The coincidences in St Paul’s lan- 
guage here with our Lord’s words as 
related in the Gospels (Matt. xv. 
1—20, Mark vii. 1—23) are striking, 
and suggest that the Apostle had this 
discourse in his mind. (1) Both alike 
argue against these vexatious ordi- 
nances from the perishableness of 
meats. (2) Both insist upon the indif- 
ference of such things in themselves. 
In Mark vii. 19 the Evangelist em- 
phasizes the importance of our Lord’s 


This] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


205 


/ , , \ sf ? > 
Barwa éotiv Noyov pev ExovTa aodias év éFeNoGpn- 


words on this occasion, as practically 
abolishing the Mosaic distinction of 
meats by declaring all alike to be 
clean (xadapifwy; see the note on ver. 
16). (3) Both alike connect such or- 
dinances with the practices condemn- 
ed in the prophetic denunciation of 
Isaiah, 

23. ‘ All such teaching is worthless. 
It may bear the semblance of wisdom ; 
but it wants the reality. It may make 
an officious parade of religious service ; 
it may vaunt its humility; it may 
treat the body with merciless rigour ; 
but it entirely fails in its chief aim. 
It is powerless to check indulgence of 
the flesh.’ 

atwa] ‘which sort of things’ Not 
only these particular precepts, j.7) ayy 
x.7.A., but all precepts falling under 
the same category are condemned. 
For this force of driva as distinguished 
from da, see the notes on Gal. iv. 24, 
v. 19, Phil. iv. 3. The antecedent 
here is not évrd\pata kal didacka- 
Alas x.7.A., but the prohibitions given 
in ver, 21. 

Aoyov pev «.7.A.]' ‘having a reputa- 
tion for wisdom,’ but not the reality. 
The corresponding member, which 
should be introduced by dé, is sup- 
pressed; the oppositive clause being 
postponed and appearing later in a 
new form, ovk év Tiyun Tur Kt.A. Such 
suppressions are common in classical 
writers, more especially in Plato; see 
Kihner § 531, 11. p. 813 sq., Jelf § 766, 
and comp. Winer $ lxiii. p. 719 sq. 
Jerome therefore is not warranted in 
attributing St Paul’s language here to 
‘imperitia artis grammaticae’ (Epis. 
exxi, Op. 11. p. 884). On the contrary 
it is just the license which an adept 
in a language would be more likely 
to take than a novice. 

In this sentence Acyov éyovra ao- 
dias is best taken as a single predicate, 
so that é€orw is disconnected from 
€xovra. Otherwise the construction 
€or éxovra (for yer) would be 


supported by many parallels in the 
Greek ‘Testament ; sce Winer § xlv. 
Dp. 437. 

The phrase Aoyov €xeww tTivos, 80 far 
as I have observed, has four meanings. 
(A) Two as applied to the thinking 
subject. (i) ‘To take account of, to hold 
in account, to pay respect to’: e.g. 
Aisch. Prom, 231 Bporéy O€ trav ra- 
Aaut@apawv Noyov ovK ~ryxev ovdéva, De- 
mosth. de Coron. § 199 etmep 7 SoEns 
i} Tpoyovwv 7 Tov péAdovTos aidvos 
eixe Noyov, Plut. Vit. Philop. 18 més 
a&tov ékeivou oyov Exew Tod avdpds 
k.7.A. (ii) ‘To possess the reason or 
account or definition of” ‘to have a 
scientific knowledge of’; Plato Gorg. 
p- 465 A réxvnv S€ adrjy ov nut eivae 
GAN epreipiay, dre ov« exet oyov ov- 
déva ay mpoopéper, oroia arta thy pi- 
ow éoriv, and so frequently. These 
two senses are recognised by Aristotle, 
Eth. Nic. i. 13 (p. 1102), where he 
distinguishes the meaning of the ex- 
pressions ¢yew Adyov Tov watpos 7) Tav 
didroy and exew Adyov Tay pantikar. 
(B) Two as applied to the object of 
thought. (iii) ‘To have the credit or 
reputation of, as here. This sense of 
exe Aoyov, ‘to be reputed, is more 
commonly found with an infinitive: 
e.g. Plato Epin. 987 B avrés ’Adpodi- 
Tys eivat oxedov €xet Adyov. (iv) ‘To 
fulfil the definition of, to possess the 
characteristics, to have the nature of’; 
e.g. Philo Vit. Cont. 4 (11. p. 477) €xa- 
tepov d€ mnyns oyoy €xov, Plut. Mor. 
p. 637 D ro d€ wor ote dpyns Exet do- 
yov, ov yap vdpiotrarat mparov, ovTe 
dAdov Pow, arees ydp éativ, ib. 640 ¥ 
Sei mpos To eudbutevopevoy xwpas Adyov 
éxew To SeEouevov. The senses of do- 
you €xe With other constructions, or 
as used absolutely, are very various, 
e.g. ‘to be reasonable,’ ‘to hold dis- 
course,’ ‘to bear a ratio,’ etc., but do 
not come under consideration here. 
Nor again does such an expression as 
Plut. AZor. p. 550 © pyre tov Aoyov 
éy@v Tod vopodérov, ‘not being in pos- 


206 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[TIvag 


rf \ , \ > P / / ’ 
OKELa Kal TaTrELvVoOppocuY [ kat | APELOELA TWUATOS, OUK 


session of, not knowing, the intention 
of the legislator’; for the definite ar- 
ticle removes it from the category of 
the cases considered. 

ev €9ehoOpnokeia] ‘in volunteered, 
self-imposed, officious, supererogatory 
service. One or both of these two 
ideas, (i) ‘ excessive readiness, officious 
zeal,’ (ii) ‘affectation, unreality,’ are in- 
volved in this and similar compounds ; 
c.g. ébehodovrcia, ebeAoxaxnots, eOedo- 
xivOuvos, €Ocehoxwpeiv, eOehopnrap, €Oe- 
Aompofevos: these compounds being 
used most frequently, though not al- 
ways (as this last word shows), in a 
bad sense. This mode of expression 
was naturalised in Latin, as appears 
from Augustine £pist. cxlix. 27 (u. 
p. 514) ‘Sic enim et vulgo dicitur qui 
divitem affectat thelodives, et qui sa- 
pientem thelosapiens, et cetera hujus- 
modi.’ Epiphanius, when writing of 
the Pharisees, not content with the 
word here supplied by St Paul, coins 
a double compound €@edomepiaooOpn- 
oxeia, Haer. i. 16 (p. 34). 

tarewoppoovvy| The word is here 
disparaged by its connexion, as in ver. 
18 (see the note there). The force of 
€Geho- may be regarded as carried on 
to it. Real genuine ramrewodppooiry 
is commended below; iii. 12. 

apeWeia cdparos| ‘ hard treatment 
of thebody.” The expression agecdeiv 
Tov g@paros is not uncommon, being 
used most frequently, not as here of 
ascetic discipline, but rather of cou- 
rageous exposure to hardship and 
danger in war, e.g. Lysias Or. Fun. 
25, Joseph. B. J. iii. 7. 18, Lucian 
Anach., 24, Plut. Vit. Pericl. 10; in 
Plut. Mor. p. 137 c however, of a stu- 
dent’s toil, and 2b. p. 135 E, more gene- 
rally of the rigorous demands made 
by the soul on the body. The substan- 
tive dpeideca or ddecdia does not often 
occur. On the forms in -eva and -ia 
derived from adjectives in -ys see 
Buttmann Ausf Gramm. § 119, It. 
p. 416 sq. The great preponderance 


of manuscript authority favours the 
form ddedeia here: but in such ques- 
tions of orthography the fact car- 
ries less weight than in other matters. 
The cai before ddeideia should proba- 
bly be omitted; in which case dgedeia 
becomes an instrumental dative, ex- 
plaining Acyov ¢yovra codias. While 
the insertion would naturally occur to 
scribes, the omission gives more point 
to the sentence. ‘the e@cdoOpnckeia 
kal tarewodpoovvn as the religious 
elements are thus separated from the 
ddeidera oaparos as the practical rule. 

ovk e€v Tiny K.T-A.] ‘yet not really of 
any value to remedy indulgence of 
the flesh.’ So interpreted the words 
supply the oppositive clause to Acoyov 
pev €xovta codias, as the presence of 
the negative ov« naturally suggests. 
If the sentence had been undisturbed, 
this oppositive clause would naturally 
have been introduced by 8¢, but the 
interposition of év éOchoOpnokeia x.7.X. 
has changed its form by a sort of at- 
traction. For this sense of év trippy 
comp. Lucian Merc. cond. 17 ra xawa 
TOV Vroonuarev ev TYLH TLL Kal émipe- 
Aela €oriv: similarly Hom. JJ. ix. 319 
ev O¢€ in tiuy «t.A. The preposition 
mpos, like our English ‘for,’ when used 
after words denoting utility, value, 
sufficiency, etc., not uncommonly in- 
troduces the object to check or prevent 
or cure which the thing is to be em- 
ployed. And even though utility may 
not be directly expressed in words, 
yet if the idea of a something to be 
remedied is present, this preposition 
is freely used notwithstanding. See 
Isocr. PAil. 16 (p. 85)mpos rovs BapBa- 
pous xpynomoyv, Arist. HA. iii. 21 (p. 
522) ovpdepes mpos tas Svappoias 7 ToL- 
avtn padiora, de Respir. 8 (p. 474) 
dvaykn yiwweoOa Karayvéw, ef péddre 
revéecOat ocwrnpias’ TovTo yap Bonet 
mpos ravrny THY pbopay, Lucian Pisce. 
27 Xpyowpov your Kal mpos €keivous TO 
To.ovTov, Galen Op. XII. P. 399 Xpope- 
vo ye Tivt mpos TO maOos apkteip oTe- 


[i253] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


207 


3 a ‘ \ A a , 
a F 
éy Tin Tive 7poOS TANTMOYHY THS GTapKos 


art, Pp. 420 Tov Sovtos avta mpds ddo- 
mexias padakpodcets KT D., p. 430 ouve- 
Onxayv.. -pappaxa mpos peovoas Tpixas, 
p- 476 Bpaxutarny exovre dvvapw os 
mpos TO mpokelpevor oupmrapa, p. 482 
rovTo S€ kal mpos Ta ev CAM TO ooparte 
efayOjpara opddpa Xpnotpor eoTw,p. 514 
xpnaoréov € mace Tols dvayeypappevous 
BonOnpact mpos Tas ywopevas dt éyxav- 
ow Kkefadarylas, p. 601 kad\uorov mpos 
auriv ddppaxov éyxedpevoy vapdwov 
pupov. These examples from Galen 
are only a fewoutofprobably some hun- 
dreds, which might be collected from 
the treatise in which they occur, the 
de Compositione Medicamentorum. 

The language, which the Colossian 
false teachers would use, may be in- 
ferred from the account given by Philo 
of a Judaic sect of mystic ascetics, 
who may be regarded, not indeed as 
their direct, but as their collateral 
ancestors (see p. 86, note 2, p. 94), the 
Therapeutes of Egypt; de Vit. Cont. 
§ 4 (IL p. 476 sq.) tpupaow iro oo- 
pias éoridpevot TAOVTIws Kal apOoveas 
Ta ddypara xopnyovons, ws kal....0- 
Aus Ov && uepav amoyever Oat tpo- 
is dvayxaias...o.rovvrat d€...dpTov ev- 
TEA, Kal OYov GXes...moTov Vowp vaya- 
Tialov auTois ¢oTiv...tAnTpMoVnY ws 
€xOpov te Kai émiBovdov exrpemropevot 
Wuyns cal copatos. St Paul appa- 
rently has before him some similar 
exposition of the views of the Colos- 
sian heretics, either in writing or 
(more probably) by report from Epa- 
phras. In reply he altogether denies 
the claims of this system to the title 
of copia; he disputes the value of 
these doypara; he allows that this 
mAnopovn is the great evil to be check- 
ed, the fatal disease to be cured; but 
he will not admit that the remedies 
prescribed have any substantial and 
lasting efficacy. 

The interpretation here offered is 
not new, but it has been strangely 
overlooked or despised. The pas- 
sages adduced will I trust show the 


groundlessness of objections which 
have been brought against it owing to 
the use of the preposition; and in all 
other respects it seems to be far pre- 
ferable to any rival explanation which 
has been suggested. The favourite 
interpretations in ancient or modern 
times divide themselves into two 
classes, according to the meaning as- 
signed to mpos mAnoporny tis capkos. 
(1) It is explained in a good sense: 
‘to satisfy the reasonable wants of the 
body.’ In this case ov« év rij rivi is 
generally interpreted, ‘not holding it 
(the body) in any honour.’ So the 
majority of the fathers, Greek and 
Latin. This has the advantage of 
preserving the continuity of the words 
OUK €v TUL TW Tpos TANTPOVAY K.T.A. : 
but it assigns an impossible sense to 
mAnopovy ths oapxos. For mAnopovy 
always denotes ‘repletion, ‘surfeit- 
ing,’ ‘excessive indulgence,’ and can- 
not be used of a reasonable attention 
to the physical cravings of nature; as 
Galen says, Op. XV. p. 113 mavray eiw- 
Oorwy ov povoy iatpay adda Kal Tay ad- 
wy ‘EMAnvey To THs TAnTUOrAS Svopa 
paddov mas éemipépew rais vrepBo- 
Aais THS TUMPEeT POV ToaoOTHTOS: 
and certainly neither the Apostle nor 
the Colossian ascetics were likely to 
depart from this universal rule. To 
the long list of passages quoted in 
Wetstein may be added such refer- 
ences as Philo Leg. ad Gai. § 1 (1. 
p. 546), Clem. Hom. viii. 15, Justin 
Dial. 126, Dion. Alex. in Euseb. HZ. 
vii. 25; but they might be increased 
to any extent. (2) A bad sense is 
attached to mAnopovyn, as usage de- 
mands. And here two divergent in- 
terpretations have been put forward. 
(i) The proper continuity of the sen- 
tence is preserved, and the words ovk 
év Tien TW Tpos TANTPOYAY THs TapKos 
are regarded as an exposition of the 
doctrine of the false teachers from 
their own point of view. So Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia, od tiptov vopigfor- 


208 
LEL. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


(IIL. 3 


> > 7 - - > 
Ei ovv cuvnyeponte Tw Xpioro, Ta avo G- 


TEeITE, OV 6 XpioTos éotiy év SEELE TOV Qeov Kabypevos: 


tas TO Ova mavrev TANpoiy THY CapKa, 
Ga yap paddov aipoupevous awéxeo Oat 
TOY TOAAGY Sia THY TOU YoOpov mapado- 
ow. This able expositor however is 
evidently dissatisfied, for he intro- 
duces his explanation with the words 
duages pev eott, Bovrerar O€ cinety 
k7.A.; and his explanation has not 
been adopted by others. Hither the 
sentence, so interpreted, becomes flat 
and unmeaning, though it is obviously 
intended to clinch the whole matter ; 
or the Apostle is made to confirm the 
value of the very doctrines which he 
is combating. (ii) The sentence is 
regarded as discontinuous; and it is 
interpreted, ‘not of any real value’ 
(or ‘not consisting i anything com- 
mendable, or ‘not holding the body 
in any honour’) but ‘tending to gra- 
tify the carnal desires’ or ‘mind.’ 
This in some form or other is almost 
universally adopted by modern inter- 
preters, and among the ancients is 
found in the commentator Hilary. 
The objections to it are serious. (@) 
The dislocation of the sentence is in- 
explicable. There is no indication 
either in the grammar or in the voca- 
bulary that a separate and oppositive 
clause begins with mpos mAnoporny 
x.7.A., but on the contrary everything 
points to an unbroken continuity. (8) 
The sense which it attaches to mAno- 
port) THs oapkos is either forced and 
unnatural, or it makes the Apostle 
say what he could not have said. If 
mAnopovt) tis capkos could have the 
sense which Hilary assigns to it, ‘sa- 
gina carnalis sensus traditio humana 
est, or indeed if it could mean ‘the 
mind of the flesh’ in any sense (as it 
is generally taken by modern com- 
mentators), this is what St Paul might 
well have said. But obviously mAno- 
pov) THs capkos conveys a very differ- 
ent idea from such expressions as To 
pvowotoba vrd Tod rods Ths owapKos 


(ver. 18) or ro povnua ths capKos 
(Rom. viii. 6, 7), which include pride, 
self-sufficiency, strife, hatred, bigotry, 
and generally everything that is earth- 
bound and selfish. On the other hand, 
if mAnopor THs capkos be taken in its 
natural meaning, as applying to coarse 
sensual indulgences, then St Paul 
could not have said without qualifi- 
cation, that this rigorous asceticism 
conduced mpos mAnoporny ths capkos. 
Such language would defeat its own 
object by its extravagance. 

III. 1—4. ‘Ifthis beso; if ye were 
raised with Christ, if ye were trans- 
lated into heaven, what follows? Why 
you must realise the change. All your 
aims must centre in heaven, where 
reigns the Christ who has thus ex- 
alted you, enthroned on God’s right 
hand. All your thoughts must abide 
in heaven, not on the earth. For, I 
say it once again, you have nothing to 
do with mundane things: you died, 
died once for all to the world: you 
are living another life. This life in- 
deed is hidden now: it has no out- 
ward splendour as men count splen- 
dour; for it is a life with Christ, a life 
in God. But the veil will not always 
shroud it. Christ, our life, shall be 
manifested hereafter; then ye also 
shall be manifested with Him and the 
world shall see your glory.’ 

I. El ody ovvnyéepOntre x.t.d.] ‘Tf 
then ye were raised, not ‘ have been 
raised. The aorist cuvnyépOnre, like 
dreOavere (ii. 20), refers to their bap- 
tism; and the «i ody here is a resump- 
tion of the ei in ii. 20. The sacra- 
ment of baptism, as administered in 
the Apostolic age, involved a twofold 
symbolism, a death or burial and 
a resurrection: see the note on ii. 
12. In the rite itself these were re- 
presented by two distinct acts, the 
disappearance beneath the water and 
the emergence from the water: but 


T7253) 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


209 


2 NO Cal; ~ \ Ais \ ~ - 3 9 / , 

Ta avw ppoverTe, My Ta emt THS yns. rameGaveTeE yap, 
\ \ - / \ ~ a“ ? ~ ~ 

Kal 4 Con vuwy KexpuTTa ouv Tw XpioTo ev TW Oe 


in the change typified by the rite they 
are two aspects of the same thing, 
‘like the concave and convex in a 
circle,’ to use an old simile. The ne- 
gative side—the death and burial— 
implies the positive side—the resur- 
rection. Hence the form of the Apo- 
stle’s resumption, ef dmeOavere, ei ody 
ourmyepOnrte. 

The change involved in baptism, if 
truly realised, must pervade a man’s 
whole nature. It affects not only his 
practical conduct, but his intellectual 
conceptions also. It is nothing less 
than a removal into a new sphere of 
being. He is translated from earth 
to heaven; and with this translation 
his point of view is altered, his stan- 
dard of judgment is wholly changed. 
Matter is to him no longer the great 
enemy ; his position towards it is one 
of absolute neutrality. Ascetic rules, 
ritual ordinances, have ceased to have 
any absolute value, irrespective of 
their effects. All these things are of 
the earth, earthy. The material, the 
transitory, the mundane, has given 
place to the moral, the eternal, the 
heavenly. 

Ta ave (nteite «t.A.] ‘Cease to 
concentrate your energies, your 
thoughts on mundane ordinances, and 
realise your new and heavenly life, of 
which Christ is the pole-star’ 

ev de&a «.7.r.| ‘being seated on the 
right hand of God, where xaOnpevos 
must not be connected with ecru; 
see the note on dmoxpudor, li, 3. This 
participial clause is pertinent and 
emphatic, for the session of Christ 
implies the session of the believer 
also ; Ephes. ii. 4—6 6 5€ Gcds...npas... 
ovveC(WOTOINTEY,..---KaL TvYNHyELpEY Kal 
ocuvekabtoev ev Tois emoupavioss eV 
Xpiot@ “Inood x.r.d. ; comp. Kev. ili. 21 
6 vukaov, Sdc@ avt@ xaicat pet’ epod 
€v tT Opovm pov, Os Kay® eviknoa kal 
exabioa pera Tov matpos pov ev TH 


COL. 


@pdve@ avrod, in the message addressed 
to the principal church of this dis- 
trict: see above, p. 42. BaBai, says 
Chrysostom, rod tov vodv amyyaye Tov 
nerepov 5 wos Ppovnuaros avtovs émAn- 
pace peyadou; ovK mpxer Ta avo ei- 
Mev, ovde, OU 6 Xptords é€aTiv, GAdA 
ti; “Ev de£ia rov Geov KaOnpevos’ éxei- 
Oev Aoirdv THY yiv opay mapeckevace. 

2. ta avw| The same expression 
repeated for emphasis; ‘You must 
not only seek heaven; you must also 
think heaven.” For the opposition of 
Ta avo and ta emi rhs yjs in connexion 
with dpoveiv, comp. Puil. iii, 19, 20 
oi ra émiyera Ppovovyres, nuav yap 
TO ToNiTevpa €v ovVpavois UmapXeEt; 
see also Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 17. 
Iixtremes mect. Here the Apostle 
points the antithesis to controvert a 
Gnostic asceticism : in the Philippian 
letter he uses the same contrast to 
denounce an Epicurean sensualism. 
Both alike are guilty of the same fun- 
damental error; both alike concen- 
trate their thoughts on material, mun- 
dane things. 

3. ameOavere| ‘ye died’ in baptism. 
The aorist awedavere denotes the past 
act; the perfect xéxpumra: the perma- 
nent effects. For ame@davere see the 
notes on ii. 12, 20. 

kexputtra| ‘is hidden, is buried 
out of sight, to the world.” The Apo- 
stle’s argument is this: ‘When you 
sank under the baptismal water, you 
disappeared for ever to the world. 
You rose again, it is true, but you 
rose only to God. The world hence- 
forth knows nothing of your new life, 
and (as a consequence) your new life 
must know nothing of the world, 
‘Neque Christum,’ says Bengel, ‘ne- 
que Christianos novit mundus ; ac ne 
Christiani quidem planeseipsos’ ; comp. 
Joh, xiv. I17—I9Q To mvedpa THs aAn- 
Oeias 6 6 Koopos ov Svvarat AaBeiv, ore 
ov Oewpet avTo ovdé yivdaores 


14 


210 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[TIl. 4 


e/ A ~ > , 
40Tav 6 Xpirtos Paveowhy, 1 Con juov, TOTE Kae 
Umels ody avTa Pavepwhjceabe év SoEN. 


4. 9 fwh vuar. 


avrd, vets [Se] yuwaokere avTo...0 KO- 
apos pe ovK ert Oewpet, tyeis S€ Oew- 
peiré pe’ OTe eye (a, Kal vpeis 
(noere. 

4. 6 Xptoros}] A fourth occur- 
rence of the name of Christ in this 
context; comp. ver. 2 T@ XpioT@, o 
Xpicrds, ver. 3 ovy ta Xpioro. A 
pronoun would have been more natu- 
ral, but less emphatic. 

7 Con jnuov] This is an advance on 
the previous statement, 7 (a7 vpor 
kéxpuTTat oly T@ Xpiora@, in two re- 
spects: (1) It is not enough to have 
said that the life is shared with Christ. 
The Apostle declares that the life zs 
Christ. Comp. 1 Joh. y. 12 6 €yav rov 
viov éxee THY Cwnv, Ign. Ephes. 7 €v Oa- 
var@ Con adn (of Christ), Smyrn. 
4 Incods Xpioros TO adnOuvov nyav Cyr, 
Ephes. 3 \noovs Xpioros to ddvaxptrov 
jpav thy, Magn. 1 “Inoot Xpiorod tow 
Starravrés ypaov Cyv. (2) For dpav is 
substituted judy. The Apostle hastens 
to include himself among the reci- 
pients of the bounty. For this cha- 
racteristic transition from the second 
person to the first see the note on ii. 
13. The reading duav here has very 
high support, and on this account I 
have given it as an alternative; but 
it is most probably a transcriber’s cor- 
rection, for the sake of uniformity 
with the preceding. 

Tore Kal vpets k.T.A.] ‘ The veil which 
now shrouds your higher life from 
others, and even partly from your- 
selves, will then be withdrawn. The 
world which persecutes, despises, ig- 
nores now, will then be blinded with 
the dazzling glory of the revelation.’ 
Comp. 1 Joh. iii. 1, 2 6 Kdapos ov 
yweoKker nuas, Ste ovK, &yy@ aurov. 
ayamnrol, viv réxva Qeov eopev, Kal 
ovrw épavepabn ti ecopeba’ oidapev 
dre éav HavepwO7, Spoor avt@ €a0- 
peda x.r.A., Clem. Rom. 50 of davepa- 


Onoovra év TH emioxomy THs BacWeias 
tov Xptcrov. 

ev d0&] Joh. xvii. 22 rnv Sokav Av 
d€daxas por, SéSmxa avrois, Rom. viii. 17 
wa kal ovvdoéacOauev. 

5—11. ‘So then realise this death 
to the world; kill all your earthly 
members. Is it fornication, impurity 
of whatever kind, passion, evil desire ? 
Or again, is it that covetousness which 
makes a religion, an idolatry, of greed ? 
Do not deceive yourselves, For all 
these things God’s wrath will surely 
come. In these sins ye, like other 
Gentiles, indulged in times past, when 
your life was spent amidst them. But 
now everything is changed. Now you 
also must put away not this or that 
desire, but all sins whatsoever. An- 
ger, wrath, malice, slander, filthy 
abuse; banish it from your lips. Be 
not false one to another in word or 
deed; but cast off for ever the old 
man with his actions, and put on the 
new, who isrenewed from day to day, 
growing unto perfect knowledge and 
refashioned after the image of his 
Creator. In this new life, in this 
regenerate man, there is not, there 
cannot be, any distinction of Greek or 
Jew, of circumcision or uncircumci- 
sion; there is no room for barbarian, 
for Scythian, for bond or free. Christ 
has displaced, has annihilated, all 
these; Christ is Himself all things 
and in all things,’ 

5. The false doctrine of the Gnos- 
tics had failed to check sensual indul- 
gence (ii. 23). The true doctrine of 
the Apostle has power to kill the 
whole carnal man. The substitution 
of a comprehensive principle for 
special precepts—of the heavenly life 
in Christ for a code of minute ordi- 
nances—at length attains the end 
after which the Gnostic teachers have 
striven, and striven in vain. 


Ill. 5] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Z2It 


5 / 2 \ , ee ae a, lod ~ , 

Nexpwoate ovv Ta weAn Ta ert THS ys’ Topvelay, 
r / 5) - / \ \ 
dxabapoiav, ma0os, émiOupiay Kakyv, Kat THY TAéEov- 


Nexpwaare ovr] i.e. ‘Carry out this 
principle of death to the world (ii. 20 
ameOavere, iii. 3 ameOavere), and kill 
everything that is mundane and car- 
nal in your being.’ 

ta péAn x«.7.A.| Each person has a 
twofold moral personality. There is 
in him the ‘old man, and there is in 
him also ‘the new’ (vv. 9, 10). The 
old man with all his members must 
be pitilessly slain. It is plain that ra 
peAn here is used, like avOpwros in 
ver. 9, not physically, but morally. 
Our actual limbs may be either ra émi 
Tis ys Or Ta €v Tots ovpavors, accord- 
ing as they are made instruments for 
the world or for Christ: just as we— 
our whole being—may identify our- 
selves with the wadaws avOpwros or 
with the véos advOpwros of our twofold 
potentiality. For this use of the phy- 
sical, as a symbol of the moral of 
which it is the potential instrument, 
compare Matt. v. 29 sq. ei de o ddpOah- 
pos wou oO Oekitos oxavdadiCer oe, Eee 
uvTov K.T-A. 

I have ventured to punctuate 
after ra émt ris yjs. Thus ropveiav 
K.T.A. are prospective accusatives, 
which should be governed directly by 
some such word as drdéecbe. But 
several dependent clauses interpose ; 
the last of these incidentally suggests 
& contrast between the past and the 
present; and this contrast, predomi- 
nating in the Apostle’s mind, leads to 
an abrupt recasting of the sentence, 
vuvi dé dmdbecbe kal vpeis Ta Tavra, 
in disregard of the original construc- 
tion. This opposition of roré and viv 
has a tendency to dislocate the con- 
struction in St Paul, as in i. 22 yuri dé 
dmroxatnAAaynrte (Or droxarnAAaégev),i. 26 
vov d€ épavepwOn: see the note on this 
latter passage. For the whole run of 
the sentence (the parenthetic relative 
clauses, the contrast of past and pre- 
sent, and the broken construction) 


compare Ephes. ii. I—5 kal vpas...év 
als 7roTé...€Y Og Kal-»-7rOTe,..6 O€ Oeds... 
kal ovras nas ouveCworoinaer. 

With the common punctuation the 
interpretation is equally awkward, 
whether we treat ra péAn and zrop- 
velav k.T.A. a8 in direct apposition, or 
as double accusatives, or in any other 
way. The case is best put by Seve- 
rianus, capka kadei Thy duaptiay, ns Kat 
Ta péAn KatapiOpet...0 madras avOpw- 
mos egtw TO Ppornua TO THs auaprias, 
pedn 6€ avrod ai mpakers Tov apaprn- 
parev; but this is an evasion of the 
difficulty, which consists in the direct 
apposition of the instruments and the 
activities, from whatever point they 
are viewed. 

mopveiav x.t.A.] The general order 
is from the less comprehensive to the 
more comprehensive. Thus zopveia is 
a special kind of uncleanness, while 
dxa@apcia is uncleanness in any form, 
Ephes. v. 3 mopveta S€ kai dxadapoia 
saga; comp. Gal. v. 19 mopveia, axa- 
Oapoia, doédyera, With the note there. 
Thus again da%os, though frequently 
referring to this class of sins (Kom. i. 
26, 1 'I'hess. iv. 5), would include other 
base passions which do not fall under 
the category of dxa@apcia, as for in- 
stance gluttony and intemperance. 

maos, émiOupiav] The two words 
occur together in 1 Thess. iv. 5 pn év 
mabe emOupias. So ina passage closely 
resembling the text, Gal. v. 24 of de 
Tov Xptorov “Inaov tiv oapKa é€oTavpw- 
gav avy Tois maOnpacw Kal Tais émbv- 
pias. The same vice may be viewed 
as a maGos from its passive and an ém- 
6upia from its active side. The word 
emtOvpia is not used here in the re- 
stricted sense which it has e.g. in 
Arist. Eth. Nic. ii. 4, where it ranges 
with anger, fear, etc., being related 
to mados as the species to the genus 
(see Gal. 1. c. note). In the Greek 
Testament é¢m:Ovpia has a much more 


14—2 





212 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


(III. 6 


, e/ > \ 2 / 6 ale e > A 
eLlay, nTIs Eat elowAoAaTpelia, “Ol a EpxEeTat 1) 6pyn 


comprehensive sense; e.g. Joh. viii. 44 
ras émOuplas Tov matpos vay Oédere 
mwotv. Here, if anything, émdupia 
is wider than maOos. While wados in- 
cludes all ungovernable affections, ézu- 
@vpia xaxy reaches to all evil longings. 
*1dov, says Chrysostom, yevex@s To may 
eine’ Tavta yap emOupia Kakn, BacKa- 
via, opyn, Av’7n. The epithet is added 
because ériOupia is capable of a good 
sense: comp. I Cor. x. 6 éxifupnras 
KaK@V. 

kat THY mAeovekiav] and especially 
covetousness. Impurity and covet- 
ousness may be said to divide between 
them nearly the whole domain of hu- 
man selfishness and vice; ‘Si avaritia 
prostrata est, exsurgit libido’ (Cypr. 
de Mort. 3). The one has been already 
dealt with; the other needs now to be 
specially denounced; comp. Ephes. 
Vv. 3 mopveta b€ kat dxabapolu maca 7} 
mwAcovesia. * Homo extra Deum,’ says 
Bengel (on Rom. i. 29), ‘quaerit pabu- 
lum in creatura materiali vel per vo- 
luptatem vel per avaritiam.” Comp. 
Test. vit Patr. Jud. 18 dvddkacbe 
oty, Texva pov, amd THs Topveias Kal THs 
girapyuptas...0Te Tatra aditta vopov 
Genv. Similarly Lysis Pythag. 4 (£pi- 
stol. Graec. p. 602, ed. ILercher) ovo- 
pasa & av adray i.e. the vices] 
Tparoy emerdav Tas patepas axpaciay 
Te Kat mAcoveElav’ apdw O€ modvyovot 
mwedbixavtt. it must be remembered 
that mdeoveEia is much wider than 
iAapyvpia (see Trench N. 7. Syn. 
\ xxiv. p. 77 sq.), Which itself is called 
pita mavtev tov Kaxov (1 Tim. vi. 10). 

The attempt to give weoveEia here 
and in other passezes the sense of ‘im- 
purity’ (see e.g. Llammond on Rom, 
i. 29) is founded on a misconception. 
The words mAecovexteiv, meoveEla, will 
sometimes be used in relation to sins 
of uncleanness, because such may be 
acts of injustice also. Thus adultery 
is not only impurity, but it is robbery 
also: hence 1 Thess. iv. 6 ro py vmep- 
Bawew kat weovexrety ev TE Tpdypare 


Tov adeAdoy avrov (see the note 
there). In other passages again there 
will be an accidental connexion; e.g. 
Ephes. iv. 19 eis épyaciav dxabapcias 
maons €v mAcovekia, i.e. ‘with greedi- 
ness,’ ‘with entire disregard for the 
rights of others. But nowhere do 
the words in themselves suggest this 
meaning. Here the particles xat thy 
show that a new type of sin is intro- 
duced with wheovefiavy: and in the 
parallel passage Ephes. v. 3 (quoted 
above) the saine distinction is indi- 
cated by the change from the con- 
Junctive particle xai to the disjunctive 
7. It is an error to suppose that this 
sense of mXeoveéia is supported by 
Clem. Alex. Strom. iii, 12 (p. 551 sq.) 
os yap 7 TAeoveSia mopveia Néeyerat, TH 
avrapksia evayriovpévn. On the con- 
verse error of explaining dxaGapaia to 
mean ‘ greediness,’ ‘covetousness,’ see 
the note on 1 Thess. il. 3. 

qris K.T.A.] ‘for té ts idolatry’: 
comp. Ephes. v. 5 wAeovextys, 6 (or ds) 
€or eidwAodatpyns, Polye. Phil. 11 
‘Si quis non abstinuerit se ab avari- 
tia, ab idololatria coinquinabitur’ (see 
Philippians p. 63 on the misunder- 
standing of this passage). The covet- 
ous man sets up another object of 
worship besides God. There is a sort 
of religious purpose, a devotion of the 
soul, to greed, which makes the sin 
of the misecr so hateful. The idea of 
avarice as a religion may have been 
suggested to St Paul by our Lord’s 
words, Matt. vi. 24 ov dvvacGe Ceo 
SovAevew Kal papwva, though it is a 
mistake to suppose that Mammon was 
the name of a Syrian deity. It ap- 
pears however elsewhere in Jewish 
writers of this and later ages: eg. 
Philo de Mon. i. 2 (I. p. 214 sq.) mav- 
TayoOev prev apyvptov Kat xpuvalov €xro- 
pitovat, To b€ mopiabev ws ayadpa Oeiov 
ev addvrots OncavpopvAakovow (with the 
whole context), and Shemoth Rabba 
fol. 121. 3 ‘Qui opes suas multiplicat 
per feenus, ile est idololatra’ (with 


III. 7, 8] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


213 


~ - La \ lod / , ¢ 
Tov Qeov> 7épy ols Kal Vues TEPLETATHOATE TOTE, OTE 
»oA > ld e 3 et nda! ’ ’ Ahoe ~ \ / 
ECnTE Evy TovTOIs’ “vuVt d€ amroder Ge Kal UuEls Ta TaVTA, 


other passages quoted by Wetstein 
and Schéttgen on Ephes. v. 5). St 
Chrysostom, fom. tn Joann. lxv 
(VIII. p. 392 sq.), enlarges on the cult 
of wealth—the consecration of it, the 
worship paid to it, the sacrifices de- 
manded by it: 7 d€ dirapyupia Aéyer, 
Cicov por THY cavTov Wuyny, Kal Treiber 
opas otous €xer Bwpous, ota Séxerar Ov- 
para (p. 393). The passage in TZesté. 
wit Patr. Jud. 18 n didtapyupia rpos 
eiooAa ddnyet is no real parallel to St 
Paul’s language, though at first sight 
it seems to resemble it. For 7rus, 
‘seeing that it, see the note on Phil. 
iv. 3. 

Gi7-wyou vax) | Phe received 
text requires correction in two points. 
(1) It inserts the words émi rods viovs 
Tis areOeias after tov Geov. Though 
this insertion has preponderating sup- 
port, yet the words are evidently in- 
terpolated from the parallel passage, 
Ephes. v. 6 6a tatra yap e€pyera 7 
Opy) Tov Geov emt Tovs viods THs aret- 
Gcias. We are therefore justified in 
rejecting them with other authorities, 
few in number but excellent in cha- 
racter. See the detached note on va- 
rious readings. When the sentence is 
thus corrected, the parallelism of 80’ 
d...ev ois kal...may be compared with 
Ephes. i. 11 ev d kal exAnpoOnper...év @ 
kal bpeis...ev @ kal muaTevoartes eappa- 
yioOnre, and ii. 21, 22 ev & waca [7] 
oikodop7...€2 @ Kal vpeis cuvotKkodo- 
peicbe. (2) The vast preponder- 
ance of authority obliges us to substi- 
tute rovto.s for avrots. 

6. épxera:] This may refer either 
to the present and continuous dispen- 
sation, or to the future and final judg- 
ment. The present épyecGa is fre- 
quently used to denote the certainty 
of a future event, e.g. Matt. xvii. 11, 
Joh. iv. 21, xiv. 3, whence 6 épxdpevos 
is a designation of the Messiah : sce 
Winer § xl. p. 332. 


7. ev ois x.t.A.] The clause ext rods 
vious Ths ameiOcias having been struck 
out, €v ois must necessarily be neuter 
and refer to the same as 6’ a. Inde- 
pendently of the rejection of the 
clause, this neuter seems more proba- 
ble in itself than the masculine: for 
(1) The expression mepirareiy ev is 
most commonly used of things, not of 
persons, especially in this and the 
companion epistle: iv. 5, Ephes. ii. 2, 
10, iv. 17, v. 2; (2) The Apostle would 
hardly denounce it as a sin in his Co- 
lossian converts that they ‘ walked 
among the sons of disobedience’ ; for 
the Christian, though not of the world, 
is necessarily in the world: comp. 1 
Cor. v. 10. The apparent parallel, 
Ephes. ii. 3 é€v ois kat nets waves ave- 
otpadnuev mote ev tais eniOvpias Tis 
Gapkos juav (where ois seems to be 
masculine), does not hold, because the 
addition ev rats émiOupias x.7.A. makes 
all the difference. Thus the rejection 
of the clause, which was decided by 
textual considerations, is confirmed by 
exegetical reasons. 

kai vpeis |‘ ye, like the other heathen’ 
(i. 6 kai ev dvpiv), but in the next 
verse xal -vueis is rather ‘ye your- 
selves,’ ‘ye notwithstanding your for- 
mer lives.’ 

ore entre x.7.A.] ‘When ye lived in 
this atmosphere of sin, when ye had 
not yet died to the world’ 

ev tovtas] ‘in these things’ We 
should have expected avrvis, but 
rovtots is substituted as more empha- 
tic and condemnatory: comp. Ephes. 
v. 6 dua ratra yap épxetarn.t.r. The 
two expressions (jv ev and repurareiv 
ev involve two distinct ideas, denoting 
the condition of their life and the cha- 
racter of their practice respectively. 
Their conduct was conformable to 
their circumstances. Comp. Gal. v. 25 
el (Suey mvevpati, mvevpat. Kal OTOI- 


XOBEM 


214 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


> , 7 / , > 7 ; 
opyiv, Guuov, Kaxiav, BrAacdnulav, aioypo\oyiay €x 


a e € — 
TOU OTOMATOS UMW)’ 


8. The errors of the past suggest 
the obligations of the present. Thus 
the Apostle returns to the topic with 
which the sentence commenced. But 
the violence of the contrast has broken 
up the grammar of the sentence; see 
the note on ver. 5. 

ra mavra | ‘not only those vices which 
have been specially named before 
(ver. 5), but add of whatever kind.’ The 
Apostle accordingly goes on to spe- 
cify sins of a wholly different type 
from those already mentioned, sins 
of uncharitableness, such as anger, 
detraction, malice, and the like. 

opynv, Oupov] Sanger, wrath.’ The 
one denotes a more or less settled 
feeling of hatred, the other a tumul- 
tuous outburst of passion. This dis- 
tinction of the two words was fixed 
chiefly by the definitions of the Stoics : 
Diog. Laert. vii. 114 0 d€ Oupos eorw 
opy?) dpxopern. So Ammonius Oupos 


peév €ote TpoaKaupos, opyy S€ moAvypo- 


vios pynowkaxia, Greg. Naz. Carm. 34 
(11. p. 612) Oupds pév eorw adpoos Céars 
dpevcs, opy) Sé Oupos eppévov. They 
may be represented in Latin by ira 
and furor ; Senec. de Ira ii. 36 ‘ Aja- 
cem in mortem egit furor, in furorem 
ira,’ and Jerome in Ephes. iv. 31 ‘ Fu- 
ror incipiens ira est’: see Trench 
NOT. Syn} Xxxvil, p.423'sq) On 
other synonymes connected with 6v- 
pos and opyy see the note on Ephes. 
iv. 31. 

kaxiav]| ‘malice, or ‘malignity,’ as 
it may be translated in default of a 
better word. Itis not (at least in the 
New Testament) vice generally, but 
the vicious nature which is bent on 
doing harm to others, and is well de- 
fined by Calvin (on Ephes. iv. 31) ‘ani- 
mi pravitas, quae humanitati et aequi- 
tatt est opposita.’ This will be evi- 
dent from the connexion in which it 
appears, e.g. Rom. i. 29, Eph. iv. 31, 
Tit. iii, 3. Thus xaxia and movnpia 


9 un WevderGe eis aXAnAOUS* areEK- 


(which frequently occur together, e.g. 
1 Cor. y. 8) only differ in so far as the 
one denotes rather the vicious dispo- 
sition, the other the active exercise of 
it. The word is carefully investigated 
in Trench WV. T. Syn. § xi. p. 35 sq. 

Bracdnpiay| ‘evil speaking, rail- 
ing, slundering, as frequently, e.g. 
Rom. iii. 8, xiv. 16, 1 Cor. iv. 13 (v.1.), 
x. 30, Ephes. iv. 31, Tit. iii. 2. The 
word has the same twofold sense, ‘ evil 
speaking ’ and ‘ blasphemy,’ in classi- 
cal writers, which it has in the New 
Testament. 

air xpodoyiay] ‘ foul-mouthed abuse.’ 
The word, as used elsewhere, has two 
meanings: (1) ‘ Filthy-talking,’ as de- 
fined in Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 6 (p. 
189 sq.), where it is denounced at 
length: comp. Arist. Pol. vii. 17, Epict. 
Man. 33, Plut. dor. 9, and so com- 
monly; (2) ‘ Abusive language, as 
e.g. Polyby vill. £3.'S0xiL 145.3) peer 
10. 4. If the two senses of the word 
had been quite distinct, we might have 
had some difficulty in choosing be- 
tween them here. The former sense 
is suggested by the parallel passage 
Ephes. v. 4 alayporns kat pwporoyia 7 
eutpavedia; the second by the con- 
nexion with Bracdnyia here. But 
the second sense is derived from the 
first. The word can only mean ‘ abuse,’ 
when the abuse is ‘foul-mouthed.’ 
And thus we may suppose that both 
ideas, ‘filthiness’ and ‘ evil-speaking, 
are included here. 

Q. dmexdvodpevoe xk.t.r.] ‘putting 
of? Do these aorist participles de- 
scribe an action coincident with or 
prior to the Wevderbe? In other 
words are they part of the command, 
or do they assign the reason for the 
command? Must they be rendered 
‘ putting off, or ‘seeing that ye did (at 
your baptism) put off’? The former 
seems the more probable interpreta- 
tion; for (1) Though both ideas are 


Lif, 10, 11] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


215 


, \ \ of \ ~ / 
duoauevot Tov TaXaov avOpwrov cuv Tals rpakeow 
- \ / A / A / 
avuTov, "Kal évovTapevol TOV VEOV, TOY aVaKaLVOUMEVOV 

, ? / ~ / , e/ 
Els ETIYVWOLV KAT ElKOVa TOU KTiGayTos avToV* ™ O7roU 


found in St Paul, the imperative is the 
more usual; e.g. Rom. xiii. 12 sq. drodw- 
peba ovv Ta épya Tod oKoTous, evdvad- 
peda S€ ra GrAa TOD hwrtos...evddcacbe 
rov Kupiov’Incotv Xpiorov, Ephes. vi. 11 
évdvcacbe tHv mavorAiayv With ver. 14 
oTire ovv...evdvodpuevot x.T.A., L Thess. 
v. 8 yipopev evdvodpevor wt-A. The 
one exception is Gal. iii. 27 dco: yap 
eis Xpiotov é€BanricOnre, Xpiorov éve- 
dvcacGe. (2) The ‘putting on’ in 
the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 24, is 
imperative, not affirmative, whether 
we read evdvcacOa or éevdvcacée. 
(3) The participles here are followed 
immediately by an imperative in the 
context, ver. 12 ¢vdtcacde ovv, where 
the idea seems to be the same. For 
the synchronous aorist participle see 
Winer § xlv. p. 430. St Paul uses 
dmekOvodpevot, evdvodpevot (not dzrex- 
dvopevor, évdvouevor), for the same 
reason for which he uses éevdvcac de 
(not évdverGe), because it is a thing to 
be done once for all. For the double 
compound dmexdverOa see the notes 
onli. II, 15. 

madaov avOpwrov| as Rom. vi. 6, 
Ephes. iv. 22. With this expression 
compare o ¢£a, 6 €ow dvOpwmos, Rom. 
vii. 22, 2 Cor. iv. 16, Ephes. iii. 16; 6 
Kpumros tis Kapdias avOpwmos, I Pet. 
iii. 4.3; 6 puxpos pov avOpwros, ‘my in- 
significance, Polycr. in Euseb. H. £. 
V2, 

Io, rov veov x.t.A.] In Ephes. iv. 
24 it is évdvcacOa Tov Katvov avbpo- 
mov. Of the two words véos and ka- 
vos, the former refers solely to time, 
the other denotes quality also; the 
one is new as being young, the other 
new as being fresh: the one is op- 
posed to long duration, the other to 
effeteness; see Trench NV. 7. Syn. 
§ lx. p. 206. Here the idea which is 
wanting to véos, and which xatvos gives 


in the parallel passage, is more than 
supplied by the addition rov dvaxa- 
VOUMEVOY K.T.A. 

The véos or katvos avOpwros in these 
passages is not Christ Himself, as the 
parallel expression Xpicrov évdvca- 
c$a might suggest, and as it is actu- 
ally used in Ign. Ephes. 20 eis roy Kat- 
vov avOpwmoy "Incotv Xpiorov, but the 
regenerate man formed after Christ. 
The idea here is the same as in xawv7 
kriots, 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15: comp. 
Rom. vi. 4 xaworns (w%s, Barnab. 16 
eyevoueba kawvoi, madw €& dpyns Krito- 
pevot. 

Tov avakawwovpevoy] ‘which is ever 
being renewed. The forceof the pre- 
sent tense is explained by 2 Cor. iv. 
16 6 €ow nyav [avOpwros] dvaxawovrat 
imépa katyuépa. Compare also the 
use of the tenses in the parallel pas- 
sage, Ephes. iv. 22 sq. amodécOa, ava- 
veovabat, evdvcacba. For the op- 
posite see Ephes. iv. 22 roy madaov 
avOpwmoy tov POerpopevoy K.T.r. 

eis emlyvoow] ‘unto perfect know- 
ledge, the true knowledge in Christ, 
as opposed to the false knowledge of 
the heretical teachers. For the im- 
plied contrast see above, pp. 44,99 sq. 
(comp. the notes on i. 9, ii. 3), and for 
the word ériyvwors the note on i. 9. 
The words here are to be connected 
closely with dvaxawovpevoy: comp. 
Heb. vi. 6 wadw dvakatvicery eis pe- 
Tavotay. 

kat eixova k.t.A.] The reference is 
to Gen. i. 26 xal eimev 6 Geos, THoun- 
cwpev avOpwrov Kar’ eikova nuerépay 
K.T.A.3; comp. ver. 28 xar’ eixova Geod 
éroingev avrov. See also Ephes, iv. 24 
Tov Katvov avOpwrov Tov Kata Ocoy kTi- 
oevra. This reference however does 
not imply an identity of the creation 
here mentioned with the creation of 
Genesis, but only an analogy between 


216 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


(ILI. 11 


> > ~ \ \ 
ovk évtENAnv Kal “lovdatos, mepitoun Kal axpoBuaTia, 


the two. The spiritual man in each 
believer’s heart, like the primal man 
in the beginning of the world, was 
created after God’s image. The xawy7 
xriots in this respect resembles the 
dpxaia xriots. The pronoun avroy 
cannot be referred to anything else 
but the véos ayOpwmos, the regene- 
rate man; and the aorist kxricavros 
(compare xtioOevra in the parallel 
passage Ephes. iv. 24) refers to the 
time of this dvayévyno.s in Christ. 
Sce Barnab. 6 dvaxatvicas nuas év 
TH apecet THY GuapTLey eroingey Nas 
G@\Xov turov...ocay 5) dvamAaacor- 
Tos avrov nuas, after which Gen. i. 26 
is quoted. The new birth was a re- 
creation in God’s image; the subse- 
quent life must be a deepening of this 
image thus stamped upon the man. 
The allusion to Genesis therefore 
requires us to understand tod xricav- 
tos of God, and not of Christ, as it is 
taken by St Chrysostom and others ; 
and this seems to be demanded also 
by the common use of 6 xricas. But 
if Christ is not 6 xrioas, may He not be 
intended by the eikav rod xricavros ? 
In favour of this interpretation it may 
be urged (1) That Christ elsewhere is 
called the eikoy of God, i. 15, 2 Cor. 
iv. 4; (2) That the Alexandrian school 
interpreted the term in Gen. i. 26 as 
denoting the Logos; thus Philo de 
Mund. Op. 6 (i. p. 5 M) 76 dpyérumov 
mapadetypa, idea TOY ie@v O Ocod o- 
yos (comp. ib. §§ 7, 23, 24, 48), Fragm. 
Il. p.625 M Ovnrov yap ovdev amerkouc- 
Ojvat mpos Tov avwrarw kal matépa 
TOY OAwy €dvVYaTO, GAA Tpos TOY SevTE- 
pov Ocov Os e€otiy e€kelvov Aoyos xK.T.A. 
Leg. Alleg. i. 31,32. (1. p. 106 8q,), 
Hence Philo speaks of the first man 
as eixav eixovos (de Mund. Op. 6), and 
aS mayxadov mapadelypatos mayKaNov 
pipnua (ib. § 48). A pregnant mean- 
ing is thus given to card, and kar’ «i- 
cova is rendered ‘ after the fashion (or 
pattern) of the Image.’ But this in- 
terpretation seems very improbable in 


St Paul; for (1) In the parallel pas- 
sage Ephes. iv. 24 the expression is 
simply xara Gedy, which may be re- 
garded as equivalent to xar’ eixova tov 
ktioavtos here; (2) The Alexandriau 
explanation of Gen. i. 26 just quoted 
is very closely allied to the Platonic 
doctrine of ideas (for the eixdy, so in- 
terpreted, is the archetype or ideal 
pattern of the sensible world), and 
thus it lies outside the range of those 
conceptions which specially recom- 
nended the Alexandrian terminology 
of the Logos to the Apostles, as a fit 
vehicle for communicating the truths 
of Christianity. 

II. ozov] ie. ‘in this regenerate 
life, in this spiritual region into which 
the believer is transferred in Christ.’ 

ovx éu| ‘Not only does the dis- 
tinction not exist, but it cannot exist, 
It is a mundane distinction, and there- 
fore it has disappeared. For the 
sense of é, negativing not merely the 
fact, but the possibility, see the note 
on Gal. iii. 28. 

"EAAnvk.t.A.| Comparing the enume- 
ration here with the parallel passage 
Gal. iii. 28, we mark this difference. 
In Galatians the abolition of all dis- 
tinctions is stated in the broadest 
way by the selection of three typical 
instances; religious prerogative (Iov- 
Saios,"EAAny), social caste (SodAos, €Aev- 
Gepos), natural sex (@poev, O7dv). Here 
on the other hand the examples are 
chosen with special reference to the 
immediate circumstances of the Co- 
lossian Church, (1) The Judaism of 
the Colossian heretics is met by”EAAnv 
kal Iovdaios, and as it manifested it- 
self especially in enforcing circumci- 
sion, this is further emphasized by 
meptroun Kai axpoSvoria (see above, 
p- 73).- (2) Their Gnosticism again is 
met by BdpBapos, SkvOns. They laid 
special stress on intelligence, penetra- 
tion, gnosis. The Apostle offers the 
full privileges of the Gospel to barba- 
rians and eyen barbarians of the low- 





III. 11] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


217 


BapBapos, ZKvOns, dovdAos, erEvVCEpos, ad\\a Ta TavTa 


est type (see p. 99 sq.). In Rom. i. 14 
the division "E\Anoiy re Kal BapBapors 
is almost synonymous with codois 
Te Kat avorjros. (3) Special cir- 
cumstances, connected with an emi- 
nent member of the Church of Colos- 
se, had directed his attention at this 
moment to the relation of masters and 
slaves. Hence he cannot leave the 
subject without adding SodXos, édev- 
depos, though this has no special bear- 
ing on the Colossian heresy. See 
above, p. 33, and the note on iii. 22, 
together with the introduction to the 
Hpistle to Philemon. 

meptrouy «.t.A.] Enforcing and ex- 
tending the lesson of the previous 
clause. This abolition of distinctions 
applies to religious privilege, not only 
as inherited by birth (‘EAAny kal “Iov- 
datos), but also as assumed by adop- 
tion (mepitopr Kal dxpoBvoria). If it is 
no adyantage to be born a Jew, it is 
none to become as a Jew; comp. I Cor. 
vii. 19, Gal. v. 6, vi. 15. 

BapBapos] To the Jew the whole 
world was divided into "Iovdator and 
“EdAnves, the privileged and unprivi- 
leged portions of mankind, religious 


prerogative being taken as the line of 


demarcation (see notes Gal. ii. 3). 
To the Greek and Roman it was 
similarly divided into “EAAnves and 
BapBapo, again the privileged and 
unprivileged portion of the human 
race, civilisation and culture being 
now the criterion of distinction. 
Thus from the one point of view the 
"EdAnyv is contrasted disadvantage- 
ously with the “Iovdaios, while from 
the other he is contrasted advantage- 
ously with the BapSapos. Both dis- 
tinctions are equally antagonistic to 
the Spirit of the Gospel. The Apostle 
declares both alike null and void in 
Christ. The twofold character of the 
Colossian heresy enables him to strike 
at these two opposite forms of error 
with one blow. 

The word BdpBapos properly deno- 


ted one who spoke an inarticulate, 
stammering, unintelligible language ; 
see Max Miller Lectures on the Sci- 
ence of Language ist ser. p. 81 sq., 
114 sq., Farrar Families of Speech 
p. 21: comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 11. Hence 
it was adopted by Greck exclusiveness 
and pride to stigmatize the rest of 
mankind, a feeling embodied in the 
proverb mas pn "EMA BapBapos (Ser- 
vius on Verg. Aen. 1. 504) ; comp. 
Plato Polit. 262 1 15 pey “EXAnvixoy 
@s év amo TmavTwy apatpobvres Yapis, 
ovpmact 5€ Tois adXos yéeveow...Bap- 
Bapov pia kAnoet mpoceimovtes aro 
k.7.A., Dionys. Hal. het. xi. 5 durdovv 
dé ro €Ovos, "EMAnv 4} BapBapos x.t.d. 
So Philo Vit. AZoys. ii. 5 (11. p. 138) 
speaks of ro jucou TuRpa Tod dvOpo- 
Tay yevous, TO BapBapexoy, aS Opposed 
to ro ‘EXAnrxov. It is not necessary 
to suppose that they adopted it from 
the Egyptians, who seem to have call- 
ed non-Egyptian peoples berber (sce 
Sir G. Wilkinson in Rawlinson’s He- 
rod. ii. 158); for the onomatopeeia will 
explain its origin independently, Stra- 
bo xiv. 2. 28 (p. 662) otuae Sé ro Bap- 
Bapov kat apxas éexrehovncbar otras 
kaT ovopatoroulay emt Tov Sucexpdopws 
Kal oKAnpe@s Kal Tpayews AadovyTaY, ws 
ro Batrapifev «tA. The Latins, 
adopting the Greek culture, adopted 
he Greek distinction also, e.g. Cic. de 
Fin. ii. 15 ‘Non solum Graecia et Ita- 
lia, sed etiam omnis barbaria’: and 
accordingly Dionysius, Ant. Rom. i.69, 
classes the Romans with the Greeks 
as distinguished from the ‘ barbarians’ 
—this twofold division of the human 
race being taken for granted as abso- 
lute and final. So too in v. 8, haying 
meutioned the Romans, he goes on to 
speak of of aXor" Daves: The older 
Roman poets however, writing from a 
Greek point of view, (more than half 
in irony) speak of themselves as bar- 
bari and of their Sieger as barbaria; 
e.g. Plaut. AZil. Glor. ii. 2. 58 ‘ poetae 
barbaro’ (of Naevius), Asin. Prol. 11. 


218 


sh > - ie 
Kal €V Tact XploTos. 


‘Maccus vortit barbare,’ Poen. iii. 2. 
21 ‘in barbaria boves.’ 

In this classification the Jews ne- 
cessarily ranked as ‘barbarians’; Orig. 
c. Cels. i. 2, At times Philo seems 
tacitly to accept this designation (Vit. 
Moys. |. c.); but elsewhere he resents 
it, Leg. ad Gai. 31 (11. p. 578) vad dpo- 
vnpatos, os pev evar Tov SvaBadAdvr@v 
elovev av, BapBapikod, ws S yet Td 
ddnOes, eXevdepiov kai evyevods. On 
the other hand the Christian Apolo- 
gists with a true instinct glory in the 
‘barbarous’ origin of their religion : 
Justin Apol. i. 5 (p. 56 A) dAAa kat év 
BapBapots Um’ avrov Tov Adyou poppaber- 
Tos Kat avOpwrov yevopevov, ib. § 46 (p. 
83 D) év BapBdpoas dé ’ABpadu «.r.X., 
Tatian. ad Graec. 29 ypadais rioiv 
evtuxeity BapBapixais, ib. 31 Tov de 
(Mavoqv) maons BapBapov codias ap- 
xnyov, ib. 35 tis Ka’ nyas BapBapov 
gtdocodpias. By glorying in the name 
they gave a practical comment on the 
Apostle’s declaration that the distinc- 
tion of Greek and barbarian was 
abolished in Christ. In a similar spirit 
Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 16 (p. 361) en- 
deavours to prove that ov pdvov dido- 
copias adda kal maons cxedov TéExuNsS 
evpetat BapBapor. 

‘Not till that word Uarbarian,’ 
writes Prof. Max Miller (1. c. p. 118), 
‘was struck out of the dictionary of 
mankind and replaced by brother, not 
till the right of all nations of the world 
to be classed as members of one genus 
or kind was recognised, can we look 
even for the first beginnings of our 
science. This change was effected by 
Christianity... Humanity is a word 
which you look for in yain in Plato or 
Aristotle; the idea of mankind as one 
family, as the children of one God, is 
an idea of Christian growth: and the 
science of mankind, and of the lan- 
guages of mankind, is a science which, 
without Christianity, would never have 
sprung into life. When people had 
been taught to look upon all men as 


EPISTLH TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


PEITS x2 


/ > ec > 
™évouoacGe ovv, Ws EKAEKTOL 


brethren, then and then only, did the 
variety of human speech present itself 
as a problem that called for a solution 
in the eyes of thoughtful observers : 
and I therefore date the real begin- 
ning of the science of language from 
the first day of Pentecost... The com- 
mon origin of mankind, the differences 
of race and language, the susceptibi- 
lity of all nations of the highest men- 
tal culture, these become, in the new 
world in which we live, problems of 
scientific, because of more than scien- 
tific interest.’ St Paul was the great 
exponent of the fundamental principle 
in the Christian Church which was 
symbolized on the day of Pentecost, 
when he declared, as here, that in 
Christ there is neither “EAAny nor 
BapBapos, or as in Rom. i. 14 that he 
himself was a debtor equally "EAAnciv 
re kat BapBapots. 

The only other passage in the New 
Testament (besides those quoted) in 
which BapBapos occurs is Acts xxviii. 
2, 4, where it is used of the people of 
Melita. If this Melita be Malta, they 
would be of Phoenician descent. 

Sxv@ns| The lowest type of barba- 
rian. There is the same collocation 
of words in Dionys. Halic. Rhet. xi. 
5, 6 marnp, BapBapos, ZxvOns, rvéos, 
Aesch. c. Ctes. 172 Sxt6ns, BapBapos, 
éAAnvifev ry heovn (of Demosthenes). 
The savageness of the Scythians was 
proverbial. The earlier Greek writers 
indeed, to whom omne ignotum was 
pro magnifico, had frequently spoken 
of them otherwise (see Strabo vii. 3. 
7 8q.,p. 300 sq.). Aeschylus for instance 
called them evvopor Sxvda, Fragm. 
189 (comp. Lum. 703). Like the 
other Ilyperboreans, they were a 
simple, righteous people, living be- 
yond the vices and the miseries 
of civilisation, But the common 
estimate was far different, and pro- 
bably far more true: e.g. 3 Mace. 
Vii. 5 vopov Skvdav aypiwrépay...wpo- 
tyra (comp. 2 Mace. iv. 47), Joseph. 


Lg Re ey EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 219 


= ~ A \ , / ’ = 
TOU GEou, aytot [Kae | HYATHMEVOL, OTAAYX VA OLKTLO MOU," 


c. Ap. li. 37 Sxvat...Bpayd tav Ojpioy 
diadeporres, Philo Leg. ad Gai. 2 
(II. p. 547) Sapparay yevn kat ZKvdav, 
dep ovx WTTOV eényplata Tov Teppay- 
cov, Tertull. adv. Aare. i. 1 ‘Seytha 
tetrior, Orig. c. Cels. i. 1 SkvOav, kal 
el TL SkvOay daeBéeorepov. In Vit. Moys. 
ij. 4 (I. p. 137) Philo seems to place 
the Egyptians and the Scythians at the 
two extremes in the scale of barbarian 
nations. ‘The passages given in Wet- 
stein from classical writers are hardly 
less strong in the same direction. 
aAnacharsis the Scythian is said to have 
retorted é€yot d€ mavres "EXAnves oKvOi- 
¢cvow, Clem. Strom. i. 16 (p. 364). 
The Jews had a special reason for 
their unfavourable estimate of the 
Scythians. In the reign of Josiah 
hordes of these northern barbarians 
had deluged Palestine and a great 
part of Western Asia (Herod. i. 103 
—106). The incident indeed is passed 
over in silence in the historical books; 
but the terror inspired by these in- 
vaders has found expression in the 
prophets (Ezek. xxviii, xxxix, Jer. i. 
13 Sq., Vi. I 8q.), and they left behind 
them a memorial in the Greek name 
of Beth-shean, SxvOayv wodts (Judith iii. 
10, 2 Mace. xii. 29: comp. Judges i. 
27 LXX) or Sxvdd7oAcs, Which seems to 
have been derived from a settlement 
on this occasion (Plin. WV. HZ. v. 16; 
see Ewald Gesch. m1. p. 689 sq., Grove 
s.v. Scythopolis in Smith’s Bibl. Dict.). 
Hence Justin, Dial. § 28 (p. 246 a), 
describing the largeness of the new 
dispensation, says xav Sxv6ns 7 tus } 
Tépons, exer O€ tTHy To’ Geod yvoow 
kal tov Xpictov avrov kal puhagcer 
Ta aiova dikaa...pidos éoti TO Oca, 
where he singles out two different but 
equally low types of barbarians, the 
Scythians being notorious for their 
ferocity, the Persians for their licen- 
tiousness (Clem. Alex. Pued. i. 7, 
p. 131, Strom. iii. 2, p. 515, and the 
Apologists generally). So too the 
Pseudo-Lucian, Philopatris 17, sati- 


rising Christianity, KP. rode eime, ef Kal 
Ta TOY SxvOav ev TH ovpavd eyyxapar- 
rovot, TP. mdvta, ef TUyou ye ypnotos 
kal €v €Oveot. From a misconception 
of this passage in the Colossians, 
heresiologers distinguished four main 
forms of heresy in the pre-Christian 
world, BapBapiopos, oxvOiopos, €AAy- 
vigpos, tovdaicpos ; 80 Epiphan. Epist. 
ad Acac. 2 capas yap rept TovTev Trav 
Tegoapwv aipéceay o amoaToXos emrte- 
hav én, Ev yap Xpiote Incod ov Bap- 
Bapos, ov SxvOns, ovx "EAn», ovK "lov- 
Oaios, GAAa Kav Ktiows: comp. Haer. 
i. 4, 7 8q..1. pp. 5, 8 sq.. Anaceph. 11. 
pp. 127, 129 sq. 

Ta wavra xtA.| ‘Christ ts all 
things and in all things’? Christ 
has dispossessed and obliterated all 
distinctions of religious prerogative 
and intellectual preeminence and so- 
cial caste; Christ hus substituted 
Himself for all these; Christ occupies 
the whole sphere of human life and 
permeates all its developments : comp. 
Ephes. i. 23 rod ra mdavra ev maow mAn- 
pouzevov. For ra mavra, which is 
stronger than of waves, see Gal. iii. 
22 ouvexdercev 1 ypapy Ta mavta Um 
ayapriav with the note. In this pas- 
sage ev maow is probably neuter, as 
in 2 Cor. xi. 6, Phil. iv. 12, 1 Tim. iii. 
II, 2 Tim. ii. 7, iv. 5, Ephes. iv. 6, vi. 
16. 

In the parallel passage Gal. iii. 28 
the corresponding clause is zavres 
Upeis els core ev Xptor@ “Inoov. The 
inversion here accords with a chief 
motive of the epistle, which is to as- 
sert the absolute and universal supre- 
macy of Christ; comp. i. 17 sq., ii. 
10 sq., 19. The two parts of the anti- 
thesis are combined in our Lord’s 
saying, Joh. xiv. 20 vpeis ev enol, Kayo 
ev Upiv. 

12—15. ‘Therefore, as the elect of 
God, as a people consecrated to His 
service and specially endowed with 
His love, array yourselves in hearts of 
compassion, in kindliness and humi- 


220 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[IIl. 12 


. : de 
XONTTOTITA, TaTrEewopposvvny, TOAUTYTA, paxpobu- 


lity, in a gentle and yielding spirit. 
Bear with one another, forgive freely 
among yourselves. As your Master 
forgave you His servants, so ought ye 
to forgive your fellow-servants. And 
over all these robe yourselves in love; 
for this is the garment which binds 
together all the graces of perfection. 
And let the one supreme umpire in 
your hearts, the one referee amidst 
all your difficulties, be the peace of 
Christ, which is the destined goal of 
your Christian calling, in which is 
realised the unity belonging to mem- 
bers of one body. Lastly of all; show 
your gratitude by your thanksgiving,’ 

12. evdicacbe ovv] ‘Put on there- 
fore, as men to whom Christ has be- 
come all in all. The incidental men- 
tion of Christ as superseding all other 
relations gives occasion to this argu- 
mentative ody: comp. iil. I, 5. 

ws exdexTol TOU Ceov| ‘as elect ones 
of God” Comp. Rom. viii. 3, Tit. i. 1. 
In the Gospels kAnroi and éexXexroi are 
distinguished as an outer and an in- 
ner circle (Matt. xxii. 14 wodAol yap 
eiowy KAnTOL, OAiyot O€ exAeKToi), KANTOL 
being those summoned to the privi- 
leges of the Gospel and éxdexroi those 
appointed to final salvation (Matt. 
MAIV22, 24, 91, Mark mit. 20;/22) 27. 
Luke xviii. 7). But in St Paul no 
such distinction can be traced. With 
him the two terms seem to be coex- 
tensive, as two aspects of the same pro- 
cess, xAnroi having special reference to 
the goal and ékx\exroi to the starting- 
point. The same persons are ‘ called’ 
to Christ, and ‘chosen out’ from the 
world. Thus in 1 Thess. i. 4 eiddres 
Ty exdoyny vpov K7.d. the word clearly 
denotes election to Church-member- 
ship. Thus also in 2 Tim. ii. 10, where 
St Paul says that he endures all things 
dua rovs éxXexrovs, adding iva kal avrot 
caTnplas TUxwow k.7.A., the uncertainty 
implied in these last words clearly 
shows that election to final salvation 
is not meant. In the same sense he 


speaks of an individual Christian as 
‘elect, Rom. xvi. 13. And again in 
1 Cor. i. 26, 27 Brémere Thy Kdjow 
UEOY...TA Opa TOU Kdopouv e&ede~arTo, 
the words appear as synonymes. The 
same is also the usage of St Peter. 
Thus in an opening salutation he ad- 
dresses whole Christian communities 
as éxAexroi (1 Pet. i. 1; comp. Vv. 13 7 
ovvekdexT?) ev BaSvdov, i.e. probably 
exkAnoia), aS St Paul under similar 
circumstances (Rom. i. 6, 7, 1 Cor. 
i. 2) designates them «Antoi; and in 
anothér passage (2 Pet. i. 10) he ap- 
peals to his readers to make their 
kAjows and éxdoyyn sure. The use of 
exdextos in 2 Joh. I, 13, is apparently 
the same; and in Apoe. xvii. 14 of 
per avrov KAnTol Kal ékXexTol Kal m- 
otot this is also the case, as we may 
infer from the addition of mero, which 
points to those who have been true to 
their ‘ calling and election” Thus the 
Gospels stand alone in this respect. 
In fact éxAoyn denotes election by 
God not only to final salvation, but to 
any special privilege or work, whe- 
ther it be (1) Church-membership, as 
in the passages cited from the epistles; 
or (2) The work of preaching, as when 
St Paui (Acts ix. 15) is called oxedos 
exdoyjs, the object of the ‘election’ 
being defined in the words following, 
tod Baotdca TO dvowad pov éevemtov 
[rav| edvav re Kat Bacrhewy k.T.A.5 OF 
(3) The Messiahship, 1 Pet. ii. 4, 6; or 
(4) The fatherhood of the chosen 
people, as in the case of Isaac and Ja- 
cob, Rom. ix. 11; or (5) The faithful 
remnant under the theocracy, Rom. 
xi. 5,7, 28. This last application pre- 
sents the closest analogy to the idea 
of final salvation: but even here St 
Paul treats kAjous and é€kdoyn as CO- 
extensive, Rom. xi. 28, 29 xara d5€ thy 
€xAXoynyv ayanntot dia tovs marépas* 
duetapéAnta yap Ta xapicpara Kat 7 
kAjoLs TOU Ceo. 

aysou x.T.A.] These are not to be 
taken as vocatives, but as predicates 


TET; /¥3' 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


221 


U4 - I > / > pean f € a 
piav? “Saveyouevot a\Andwy, Kal yapiComevot EavTots, 


further defining the meaning of ék\ex- 
rot. All the three terms éxXexrot, 
dytor, nyamnuevot, are transferred 
from the Old Covenant to the New, 
from the Israel after the flesh to the 
Israel after the Spirit. For the two 
former comp. 1 Pet. il. 9 yevos éxXexrov 
...€6vos ayoy; and for the sense of 
ayo, ‘ the consecrated people of God,’ 
see the note on Phil. i. 1. For the 
third word, ryarnpuevor, see Is. v. 1 
"Aco 61 TO Hyarnpeva x.t.A., Hos. 
ii, 25 tHv ovK Hyamnpéevny Hyamnperny 
(as quoted in Rom. ix. 25). In the 
New Testament it secms to be used 
always of the objects of God’s love ; 
e.g. I Thess. 1. 4 efddres, adeAol nya- 
T_Eevor VITO Oeov, THY ekNoyNY VOY, 
2 Thess. il. 13 adeAqdot nyarnpevor v0 
Kupfov (comp. Jude 1); and so proba- 
bly Rey. xx. 9 tv modu Tiv yyarnpe- 
vnv. Kor the connexion of God’s elec- 
tion and God’s love see Rom. xi. 28 
(quoted above), 1 Thess. lc. The kat 
is omitted in one or two exccllent 
copies (though it has the great pre- 
ponderance of authorities in its fa- 
vour), and it is impossible not to feel 
how much the sentence gains in force 
by the omission, exexrol Geov, ay:or, 
Hyarnuevor; comp. I Pet. i. 6. 

onmhayxva oixtippov] ‘a heart of 
pity” For the meaning of om\dyxva 
see the note on Phil. i. 8, and for the 
whole expression comp. omAdyyva eXé- 
ovs Luke 1. 78, Test. vit Patr. Gab. hs 8. 

xepnotornta «7.d.] The two words 
ypnorotns and rarewoppoovrn, * kind- 
liness’ and ‘humility, describe the 
Christian temper of mind generally, 
and this in two aspects, as it affects 
cither (1) our relation to others (ypyo- 
Tots), or (2) our estimate of self (ra- 
mewogppoorrn). Lor ypnototns see the 
note on Gal. v. 22: for rarewodpoovrn, 
the note on Phil. i. 3. 

mpaitnta kt.A.] ‘These next two 
words, mpaitns and paxpobupia, de- 
note the evercise of the Christian 
temper in its ontward bearing to- 


wards others. They are best distin- 
guished by their opposites. mpairns 
is opposed to ‘rudeness, harshness,’ 
dypuotns (Plato Symp. 197 D), xader- 
ms (Arist. H..A. ix. 1); paxpobvpia to 
‘resentment, revenge, wrath,’ sopy7 
(Prov. xvi. 32), o€vxoAia (Herm. Mand. 
y. I, 2) For the meaning of paxpo- 
Ovpia see above, oni. 11; for the form 
of mpaitns (xpadtns), on Gal. v. 23. 
The words are discussed in Trench 
NeT. Syn. 5 sii: ps t40 (sq) Sexi: 
p. 145 sq., § lili p. 184 sq. They ap- 
pear in connexion Ephes. iv. 2, Ign. 
Polyc. © paxpoOvpnoate ody per adAr- 
Av €v mpavTnte. 

13. aAdjAwy, eavtois| The pro- 
noun is varied, as in Ephes. iv. 32 
yweobe cis dAXnAOVS xXpHOTOL...xapt- 
Comevor €avTois K7.A., I Pet. iv.8—10 
Thy eis EauTOVS dyamny exTEevyn ExovTES 
...Pirdgevoe eis AAANXoOvs...€ls Eav- 
Tous avto [rd yaptopa] dcaxovotvtes. 
The reciprocal €avréy differs from the 
reciprocal d\AnA@y in emphasizing the 
idea of corporate unity: hence it is 
nore appropriate here (comp. Ephes. 
iv. 2, 32) with yapeCopevor than with 
dvexopevoe: comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 16 
avril ey TOU TuvEpyely EaUT OLS Ta OUp- 
e€povta, emnpeagovow addnAors, Kab 
Oovovow €avtots paddov 7 Tois ad- 
Aots avOpozros...kal Tpoatpovvrar pan- 
Nov ovt@ kepdaivery am adAAnrAov 7 
guvwpedovvres avTovs, where the pro- 
pricty of the two words in their re- 
spective places will be evident: and 
ip, ll. 7. 12 avtl vpopwopévorv Eavras 
7 ews GAA Aas Ewpwv, Where the vari- 
ation is more subtle but not less ap- 
propriate. For instances of this use of 
eavtav see Bleck Hebriierbrief ili. 13 
(p. 453 sq.), Kiihner Giiech. Gramm. 
§ 455 (IL p. 497 8q.). 

xapCopevor| i.e. ‘forgiving’; see the 
note on ii. 13. An @ fortioré argu- 
ment lurks under the use of éavrots 
(rather than ddAnAors): if Christ for- 
gave them, much more should they 
furgive themselres. 


222 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


(III. 14 


€av TIS moos Tliva é) O pny: Kabws Kal o Kupio 
/ Pe / xa at ‘ >’ \ \ i 2 
éxapicaTo uly, OUTWS Kal UuEis* *émt TaoW O€ TOUTOLS 


pougyy] ‘a complaint.’ As péep- 
deo Oar is ‘ to find fault with,’ referring 
most commonly to errors of omission, 
so poudy here is regarded as a debt, 
which needs to be remitted. The 
rendering of the A. V. ‘a quarrel’ 
(=querela) is only wrong as being an 
archaism. The phrase popdyy yew 
occurs several times in classical Greek, 
but generally in poetry: e.g. Eur. 
Orest. 1069, Arist. Pax 664. 

xaOos kai «.t.A.] This must not be 
connected with the preceding words, 
but treated as an independent sen- 
tence, the cafes xai being answered 
by the oUrws xai. For the presence of 
kai in both clauses of the comparison 
see the note on i. 6. The phenomenon 
is common in the best classical writers, 
e.g. Xen. Mem. i. 6.3 domep cal tov 
GdAwv Epywy of dSidackadot...ovT® Kal 
ov x.t.A.; see the references in Hein- 
dorf on Plato Phaedo 64 c, Sophist. 
217 B, and Kiihner Griech. Gramm. 
§ 524 (IL. p. 799). 

6 Kuptos] This reading, which is 
better supported than 6 Xpuoros, is 
also more expressive. It recalls more 
directly the lesson of the parable 
which enforces the duty of fellow- 
servant to fellow-servant; Matt. xviii. 
27 omdayxvicbeis 5€ 6 KUpLOS Tov 
SovAov eéxeivou améAvoev avTov Kal TO 
davecov abyxev avT@ k.r.d.: comp. below 
iv. I eidores Ort Kal vets Cxere KUPLOV 
evovpare. The reading Xpiords perhaps 
comes from the parallel passage Ephes. 
iv. 32 yapiopevor eavtois, Kabas Kai oO 
Ccds €v XpioT@ €xapicaro nyiv (or vyiv). 

oUT@s Kal vpets] SC. xapicerOe éav- 
Tots. 

14. emt maow]} ‘overand above all 
these,” comp. Luke iii. 20 mpoaé@nxev 
Kat TovTo ext maow. In Luke xvi. 26, 
Ephes. vi. 16, the correct reading is 
probably ev raowv. Love is the outer 
garment which holds the others in 
their places. 


thy dyanny] sc. evdvcacde, from ver. 
i2: 
o|‘ which thing, i.e. ‘love’; comp. 
Ephes. v. 5 wAcovextns, 6 €orw €idwdo- 
Aarpns, Ign. Rom. 7 dprov Geod béda, 
6 éorw oapé Xpicrod, Magn. 10 pera- 
Bureobe eis veav Cupny 6 éotiv “Incovs 
Xpioros, Trall. 8 avaxtncacbe éavrovs 
ev miotes & é€otw cap Tov Kupiov. 
Though there are various readings in 
the passages of the Ignatian Epistles, 
the o seems to be generally right. 
These instances will show that 6 may 
be referred to ri dyamny alone. O- 
therwise we might suppose the ante- 
cedent to be ro évdvcacbau thy dyarny, 
but this hardly suits the sense. The 
common reading 77s is obviously a 
scribe’s correction. 
ovvdecpos k.t.A.] ‘the bond of per- 
fection, i.e. the power, which unites 
and holds together all those graces 
and virtues, which together make up 
perfection. Iavra ékxeiva, says Chry- 
sostom, avrn ovagdiyyev’ dmep av eimns 
ayabov, tavtns amovons ovdev éoTw 
a\Aa Stappet: comp. Clem. Rom. 49 
tov Seapov THs ayanns Tov Ceov Tis 
dvvara: €Enynoacba; Thus the Pytha- 
goreans (Simplic. in Epictet. p. 208 a) 
TEeptocas Tay GAAwy aperav Thy Pidiav 
éripwv kai ovvSeopov avTny magav Tov 
dperav édeyov. So too Themist. Orat. 
i. (p. 5 ©) Baowdixy (dpetn) mapa tas 
@AXas eis Nv EvvdSodvrat Kai ai Aourai, 
Gorep eis piay kopupny avnupéenn. 
The word will take a genitive either 
of the object bound or of the binding 
force: eg. Plato Polit. 310 A rovrov 
Oevdrepov eivar tov Evvdecpor aperhs 
pepav hicews dvopoior xal ert Tavayria 
epouevav, where the dpery Evvdei and 
the pépn dicews Evydeira, We have 
an instance of the one genitive (the 
objective) here, of the other (the sub- 
jective) in Ephes. iv. 3 €vr@ ocvvdéop@ 
ris eipnyns (see the note.there). 
Another explanation makes ovvdec- 


III. 15] 


24 / e/ > / ~ / 
THY ayaTnV, O ETTW cuvoer os THS TENELOTNTOS. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


223 


‘ 
SKaL 


€ 2 / _ a“ / , =~ id e 5 
4 elpnyn TOU Xpixtod BpaBeveTw. év Tais Kapoiats Uuwv, 


> ra \ > I 5) eat / 
els nv Kat éxAnOnTte év évi Cwatt. 


pos=oavvbeats here, ‘the bundle, the 
totality, as e.g. Herodian. iv. 12 wav- 
Ta TOY avydecpoy Tay emitToAay (comp. 
Ign. Trall. 3 cdvdecpov drocrodor) ; 
but this unusual metaphor is highly 
improbable and inappropriate here, 
not to mention that we should expect 
the definite article o advdecpos in this 
case. With either interpretation, 
the function assigned to dyamn here 
is the same as when it is declared to 
be rAnp@pa vopov, Rom. xiii. 10 (comp. 
Gal. v. 14). See also the all-embracing 
office which is assigned to it in 1 Cor. 
mill, 

15. 1 €tpnvn Tov Xptorov| ‘ Christ’s 
peace, which He left as a legacy to His 
disciples: Joh. xiv. 27 eipyjyny apinue 
viv, eipnyny tTHy é€uny Sidope vpiv; 
comp. Ephes. ii. 14 adros yap éorw 7 
eipnyn nuov With the context. The 
common reading 7 eipyvn rod Gcov has 
a parallel in Phil. iv. 7. 

BpaBeveroa|] ‘be umpire, for the 
idea of a contest is only less promi- 
nent here, than in BpaBeioy 1 Cor. ix. 
24, Phil. iii. 14 (see the note there). 
Srad.ov evSov erroincey ev Tois Aoyiopors, 
writes Chrysostom, cai dyava kai GOAn- 
ow kal BpaBevrnv. Wherever there 
is a conflict of motives or impulses or 
reasons, the peace of Christ must step 
in and decide which is to prevail: M7 
Oupos BpaBevérw, says Chrysostom 
again, a prroverxia, ai avO,arivn 
eipnyn’ 1 yap avOpomrivn elpnvn ek TOU 
dpuverOae yiverat, ex TOU pndev macxew 
Oewvov. 

For this metaphor of some one 
paramount consideration acting as 
umpire, where there is a conflict of 
internal motives, see Polyb. ii. 35. 3 
amayv TO yryvouevov vo tav Tadarwv 
Oup@ paddov  Aoytopa BpaBeve- 
Oa, Philo de Migr. Abr. 12 (1. p. 
446) mropeverar 6 appar &’ audorépov 
@upod te kal emOupias del...tov nvioxoy 


EVYAPLOTOL 


kai BpaBeuvtyvy Aoyov armoBarav 
(comp. de Ebriet. 19, 1. p. 368), Jos. 
B. J. vi. 2. 6 éBpaBeve ras todpas 6. 
do80s. Somewhat similarly re) 
(Polyb. xxvii. 14. 4) or @uows (Athen. 
XV. p. 670 A) are made BpaBeverw. In 
other passages, where 6 Geos or To 
@ctov is said BpaBevew, this implies 
that, while man proposes, God dis- 
poses. In Philo ddnGera BpaBevovoa 
(Qui rer. div. her. 19,1. p. 486) is a 
rough synonyme for dAnOeva Sixafovsa 
(de Abrah. 14, Ul. p. 10, etc.): and 
in Josephus (Ant. vi. 3. 1) ducagecy and 
BpaBevey are used together of the 
same action. In all such cases it ap- 
pears that the idea of a decision and 
an award is prominent in the word, 
and that it must not be taken to de- 
note simply rule or power. 

eis nv x.t.A.] Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 15 
ev dé elpnyn KéxAnkev nas 6 Geos. 

ev evi owparte| ‘ As ye were called as 
members of one body, so let there 
be one spirit animating that body’: 
Ephes. iv. 4 év oa@pa kal év tvetpa. 
This passage strikes the keynote of 
the companion Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians (see esp. ii. 16 8q., iv. 3 sq.). 

evyapiaro] * And to crown all for- 
get yourselves in thanksgiving towards 
God’: see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7. The 
adjective edyapioros, though not oc- 
curring elsewhere in the Greek Bible, 
is not uncommon in classical writers, 
and like the English ‘grateful,’ has 
two meanings; enon) ‘pleasurable’ 
(e.g. Xen. Cyr. ii. 2.1); or (2) ‘ thank- 


\ 
Kal 


ful’ (e.g. Boeckh C. I, no. 1625), as 
here. 
16,17. ‘ Let the inspiring word of 


Christ dwell in your hearts, enriching 
you with its boundless wealth and en- 
dowing you with all wisdom. Teach 
and admonish one another with psalms, 
with hymns of praise, with spiritual 
songs of all kinds. Only let them be 


224 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[III. 16 


, a ~ , (Ie es 
yiverbe. *°O Novos TOO Xpio Tou évoikeiTw év Uuiv Tov- 


, 9 / / 
Giws ey Tracy copia: 


pervaded with grace from heaven. 
Sing to God in your hearts and not 
with your lips only. And generally; 
whatever ye do, whether in word or 
in deed, let everything be done in the 
name of Jesus Christ. And (again I 
repeat it) pour out your thanksgiving 
to God the Father through Him,’ 

16. ‘O Aoyos Tov Xpicrov] ‘the word 
of Christ,’ rot Xpiorov being the sub- 
jective genitive, so that Christ is the 
speaker. Though 6 oyos tov Gcod 
and 6 Adyos rov Kupiov oceur fre- 
quently, o Aeyos Tod Xprorov is found 
here only. There seems to be no di- 
rect reference in this expression to 
any definite body of truths either 
written or oral, but 6 Aoyos rod Xpic- 
rov denotes the presence of Christ in 
the heart, as an inward monitor: 
comp. I Joh. ii. 14 6 Adyos rod Ccov 
ev vpiv pevet, With 7b. 1. 10 6 Aoyos a‘- 
TOU OvK €oTLV ev juiv, and so perhaps 
Acts xvill. 5 cuveiyero T@ Aodyw (the 
correct reading). 

ev vp] ‘in your hearts, not ‘among 
you’ ; comp. Rom. vili. 9, 11 ré évorkovy 
avtov mvevpa ev viv, 2 Tim. i. 5, 14, 
and Lev. xxvi. 12, as quoted in 2 Cor. 
Vi. 16, evotxnow ev avrois. 

Tovaiws] See above, p. 43sq.,and 
the note on i. 27. 

ev macy codia| ‘in every kind of 
wisdom. It seems best to take these 
words with the preceding clause, 
though Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 4 (p. 194) 
attaches them to what foliows. For 
this position of é€v mdon copia, at the 
end of the sentence to which it refers, 
comp. i. 9, Ephes. i. 8. The connexion 
here adopted is also favoured by the 
parallel passage Ephes. v. 18, 19 (see 
the note below). Another passage i. 
28 vovGerotvres mavta avOpwmov kat 
diSacxovres mavra avOpwrov év macy 
cogia has a double bearing: while the 
connexion favours our taking év macy 
copia here with the following words, 


OuoaaKOVTES Kal 


vouvGerouvTes 


the order suggests their being at- 
tached to the preceding clause. 

didaoxovres x.t.A.]| The participles 
are here used for imperatives, as fre- 
quently in hortatory passages, e.g. 
Rom. xii. 9 sq., 16 sq., Ephes. iv. 2, 3, 
Hebr. xiii. 5, 1 Pet. ii. 12 [?], iii. 1,7, 9, 
15,16. It is not, as some insist, that 
the participle itself has any imperati- 
val force; nor, as maintained by others, 
that the construction should be ex- 
plained by the hypothesis of a prece- 
ding parenthesis or of a verb sub- 
stantive understood or by any other 
expedient to obtain a regular gram- 
matical structure (see Winer, § xlv. 
Pp. 441 8q., § lxii. p. 707, § lsiii. p. 716, 
§ lxiv. p. 732). But the absolute par- 
ticiple, being (so far as regards mood) 
neutral in itself, takes its colour from 
the general complexion of the sen- 
tence. Thus it is sometimes indica- 
tive (e.g. 2 Cor. vii. 5, and frequently), 
sometimes imperative (as in the pas- 
sages quoted), sometimes optative (as 
above, ii. 2, 2 Cor. ix. 11, comp. Ephes. 
iii. 17). On the distinction of S.da- 
okey ad vovOereivy see the note oni. 
28 ; they describerespectively the posi- 
tive and the negative side of instruc- 
tion. On the reciprocal €avrovs see 
the note on iii. 13. 

Wadpois x.7.A.] To be connected with 
the preceding sentence, as suggested 
by Ephes. v. 18 sq. dda wAnpotobe év 
mvevpatt, hadovvres éavrois [év] Wad- 
pots kal Davos kal @dais [wrvevparixais |, 
aSovtes kat Waddovtes TH Kapdia vpav 
T@ Kupio. The datives describe the 
instruments of the didayy and vov- 
devia. 

The three words yados, Buvos, 3d}, 
are distinguished, so far as they are 
distinguishable, in Trench WV.7. Syn. 
§ Ixxviii. p. 279 sq. They are cor- 
rectly defined by Gregory Nyssen in 
Psalm. ¢. iil (I. P. 295) ahpos pev 


ect 7 Oia Tod opyavov Tov povatKoD 


III. 16] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


225 


¢ \ a 4 > - ~ > ~ 
éavTous Waduois vuvors wdats mvevpatiKais év TH 


pedwdia, gon S€ 7 Sud oroparos yevo- 
Hévn Tod péAous pera pnudrav emipd- 
vnots...vpvos S€ 9 emt Tois vmapxovew 
nuiv ayabois dvariOepevn TS Oe@ evpn- 
pia; see also Hippol. p. 191 sq. (ed. 
de Lagarde). In other words, while 
the leading idea of Wadpos is a musi- 
cal accompaniment and that of dpuvos 
praise to God, @5y is the general word 
for a song, whether accompanied or 
unaccompanied, whether of praise or 
on any other subject. Thus it was 
quite possible for the same song to 
be at once yadpos, duos, and @dn. 
In the text the reference in Wadyots, 
we may suppose, is specially, though 
not exclusively (1 Cor. xiv. 26), to 
the Psalms of David, which would 
early form part of the religious wor- 
ship of the Christian brotherhood. 
On the other hand dpyvos would more 
appropriately designate those hymns 
of praise which were composed by the 
Christians themselves on distinctly 
Christian themes, being either set 
forms of words or spontaneous effu- 
sions of the moment. The third word 
@dais gathers up the other two, and 
extends the precept to all forms of 
song, with the limitation however that 
they must be mvevparixai. St Chry- 
sostom treats vuvor here as an advance 
upon Wadpoi, which in one aspect they 
are; of Wadpoi, he says, ravra ¢xovow, 
of O€ Upvoe mad ovdey avOpdmuvoy 
dray €v Tois Wadpois paGn, Tore Kal Up- 
vous eloetat, are Oevorepov mpaypa. 
Psalmody and hymnody were highly 
developed in the religious services of 
the Jews at this time: see Philo in 
Flace. 14. (IL. p. 535) mavvvxor dé dia- 
Teheoartes ev vuvois Kal @dais, de Vit. 
Cont. § 3 (If. p. 476) mowotow dopara 
kal Upvous eis Geov Oia wavroiay péerpwv 
kat peA@r, & pvOpois cepvorépors avay- 
kalws yaparrovot, § 10 (p. 484) 6 dva- 
otas tpvov adet Temoinpevoy eis Tov 
Gecov, 7) Kawvov avTos memoinKas 7} ap- 
xalov Tia Tov madat ToinTay’ pérpa 
yap kal wéAn karaXeAoimract moa éray 


COL. 


TplueTpwY, Tpogodiav, Uuvwv, mapa- 
arov0eiwv, mapaBopiov, oracipey, xo- 
pixay, oTpodais modvorpopors ev Stape- 
perpnuevoy x.T.A., § II (p. 485) adovat 
Temoinuevous els TOY Oeov Uuvous ToA- 
hois perpors kal peAeoe k.7.A.. With 
the whole context. They would thus 
find their way into the Christian 
Church from the very beginning. 
For instances of singing hymns or 
psalms in the Apostolic age sce Acts 
ive (22 wna aga Cors aeivitne ree: 
Hence even in St Paul’s epistles, more 
especially his later epistles, fragments 
of such hymns appear to be quoted; e.g. 
Ephes. v. 14 (see the note there). For 
the use of hymnody in the early Church 
of the succeeding generations see Plin. 
Epist. x. 97 ‘Ante lucem convenire, 
carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere 
secum invicem, Anon. [ Hippolytus] in 
Euseb. HZ, E. v. 28 adpoi S€ dcoe Kat 
@dat adeApav dm adpxiis vro m- 
oTav ypadeioa: Tov Adyov Tov Geod Tov 
Xpicrov vpvodvat Oeodoyouvres. The 
reference in the text is not solely or 
chiefly to public worship as such. 
Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 4 (p. 194) treats 
it as applying to social gatherings; 
and again Tertullian says of the agape, 
Apol. 39 ‘Ut quisque de scripturis 
sanctis vel de proprio ingenio potest, 
provocatur in medium Deo canere,’ 
and of the society of husband and 
wife, Ad Uzor. ii. 8 ‘Sonant inter 
duos psalmi et hymni, et mutuo pro- 
vocant quis melius Domino suo cantet.’ 
On the psalmody etc. of the early 
Christians see Bingham Anfig. xiv. 
c. I, and especially Probst Lehre und 
Gebet p. 256 sq. 

év ty xapitt] ‘in God’s grace’; 
comp. 2 Cor. i. 12 ovk €v copia cap- 
Kuk GAN év xapite Ocod. These 
words are perhaps best connected with 
the preceding clause, as by Chryso- 
stom, Thus the parallelism with ey 
maicn copia is preserved. The cor- 
rect reading is év rH xapirt, not ev 
xapirt, For 7 ydpus, ‘Divine grace’ 


15 


226 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[III. 17, 18 


, 0 5) ~ él € = = a) an 17 \ 
YapiTt, OOVTES EV Tals Kapdlals UUwWY TH OEw Kal 
~ e/ ; \ - 9 / \ > af ‘ an > 
qwav 0 TL €av TomTEe Ev AOYHW EV ENYHW, TavTa EV 
> , / > ~ > ~ ~ ~ \ 
ovonate Kupiov ‘Inoov, evyapistouvtes Tw Cew rratel 


ov avTou. 


18 ‘= ~ e I e ~ > I/ e De 
Al yuvaixes, uoTacceole TOS avopacLY, WS avy- 


see Phil. i. 7 cuveowavovs pov ths 
xaptros with the note. The definite 
article seems to exclude all lower 
senses of ydpis here, such as ‘accept- 
ableness,’ ‘sweetness’ (see iv. 6). The 
interpretation ‘with gratitude, if 
otherwise tenable (comp. 1 Cor. x. 30), 
seems inappropriate here, because the 
idea of thanksgiving is introduced in 
the following verse. 

Govres x.7.A.] This external mani- 
festation must be accompanied by the 
inward emotion. There must be the 
thanksgiving of the heart, as well as 
of the lips; comp. Ephes. v. 19 adovres 
kat addovtes 77 kapdia (probably the 
correct reading), where t7 xapdia 
‘with the heart’ brings out the sense 
more distinctly. 

17. wav 6 tux.7.A.] This is proba- 
bly a nominative absolute, as Mati. x. 
32 mas ovv dotis opodoynoel... Cpo- 
hoyjow Kayo é€v atte (comp. Luke 
xli. 8), Luke xii. 10 was Os épet Adyov 
...apednoetat avT@, John xvii. 2 wav 
0 dédaxas avto, dwon avTois K7.A.; 
comp. Matt. vii. 24 (v. 1.). 

mwavra| SC. moveire, aS the following 
evxapioTourres suggests; comp. ver. 
23: 

ev ovopart «.7.A.| This is the great 
practical lesson which flows from the 
theological teaching of the epistle, 
Hence the reiteration of Kupio, év 
Kupi, etc., Vv. 18, 20, 22, 23, 24. See 
above p. 104. 

evxaptorotvres] On this refrain see 
the notes on i. 12, ii. 7. 

T@ Ge@ rwatpi| This, which is quite 
the best authenticated reading, gives 
a very unusual, if not unique, colloca- 
tion of words, the usual form being 
either 6 Geds kai matnp Or Geds rarnp. 
The xai before marpi in the received 


text is an obvious emendation. See 
the note on i. 3, and the appendix on 
various readings, 

18—21. ‘Ye wives, be subject to 
your husbands, for so it becomes you 
in Christ. Ye husbands, love and 
cherish your wives, and use no harsh- 
ness towards them. Ye children, be 
obedient to your parents in all things ; 
for this is commendable and lovely in 
Christ. Ye parents, vex not your 
children, lest they lose heart and grow 
sullen.’ 

18 sq. These precepts, providing 
for the conduct of Christians in private 
households, should be compared with 
Ephes. v. 22—vi. 9, I Pet. ii. 18 —iii. 7, 
Tit. ii, I sa.; see also Clem. Rom. 1, 
Polye. Phil. 4 sa. 

Ai yuvaixes| ‘ Ye wives, the nomina- 
tive with the definite article being 
used for a vocative, as frequently in 
the New Testament, e.g. Matt. xi. 26, 
Mark y. 41, Luke viii. 54; see Winer 
§ xxix. p. 2278q. The frequency of 
this use is doubtless due to the fact 
that it is a reproduction of the He- 
brew idiom. In the instances quoted 
from classical writers (see Bernhardy 
Syntax p. 67) the address is not 
so directly vocative, the nominative 
being used rather to define or select 
than to swmmon the person in ques- 
tion. 

trois avdpaow] The idios of the 
received text may have been inserted 
(as it is inserted also in Ephes. v. 24) 
from Ephes. v. 22, Tit. ii. 5, 1 Pet. iii. 
I, 5, in all which passages this same 
injunction occurs. The scribes how- 
ever show a general fondness for this 
adjective; e.g. Mark xv. 20, Luke ii. 3, 
Acts i. 19, Ephes. iv. 28, 1 Thess. ii. 
PGS RV. DE 


III. 19—22] 


7 
kev €v Kuplw. 


pan mKkpaiveabe mpos avtas. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


207 


Oi avo t t ikas Kal 
PES, AYATATE Tas Yyuvaikas Kal 


\ V6 , 
°° Ta TEKVa, UTAKOVETE 


- ~ \ , ~ \ at! / 
TOLS YOvevaolyv KATA TAVTA’ TOUTO yae Evapeo TOV €OTIV 


ev Kupiw. 
c \ 5 - 
wa py aQupwow. 

avnjxev] The imperfect, as Ephes. v. 
4 @ ovK avijxey (the correct reading) ; 
comp. Clem. Hom. Contest. 3 rovde 
pi) peradovva yap, Ss ov TpoT KEY, 
Xen. de Re Equestr. xii. 14 & immapx@ 
mpoonkev eidévat Te Kal mparrew; and 
see D’Orville on Charito viii. 2 (p. 699 
sq.). The common uses of the imper- 
fect ede, émperev, etc., in classical wri- 
ters do not present a very exact 
parallel; for they imply that the thing 
which ought to have been done has 
been left undone. And so we might 
interpret Acts xxii. 22 ov yap xa6j- 
kev avtov (qv (the correct reading). 
Here however there can hardly be 
any such reference; and the best 
illustration is the English past tense 
‘ought’ (=‘ owed’), which is used in 
the same way. The past tense per- 
haps implies an essential a priori 
obligation. The use of xpjv, expny, 
occasionally approximates to this; e.g. 
Eur. Andr. 423. 

The idea of ‘propriety’ is the link 
which connects the primary meaning 
of such words as dvjxew, mpoonkev, 
xadnxewy, ‘aiming at or pertaining to,’ 
with their ultimate meaning of moral 
obligation. The word dynxeww occurs 
in the New Testament only here and 
in the contemporary epistles, Ephes. 
v. 4, Philem. 8. 

ev Kupia| Probably to be connected 
with os avjxev, rather than with vmo- 
tagoecGe; comp. ver. 20 evdpecroy 
eat ev Kupio. 

19. 1) mkpaiveoe x.r.A.] ‘show no 
bitterness, behave not harshly’; comp. 
Lynceus in Athen. vi. p. 242 © mxpav- 
Gein mpos Twa Tav ovledvrwv, Joseph. 
Ant. Y. 7.1 Sewas mpds tovs tod &- 
kaiov mpoiorauevous exmixpatvopevos, 


Plut. Mor. p. 457 A mpos yuvaa d.a- 


or € / A! ’ / \ / e La 
Oi qwatépes, py epebiCere Ta TEKVa UuwY, 

re) ~ e / / 

22Qi dovAOl, UTaKOVETE KATA TavTa 


mixpaivovrat, So also mkpaiveoOar éri 
riva in the Lxx, Jerem. xliv (xxxvii), 
15, 3 Esdr. iv. 31. This verb muxpai- 
veo$ar and its compounds occur fre- 
quently in classical writers. 

20. kata mavra] As in ver.22. The 
rule is stated absolutely, because the 
exceptions are so few that they may 
be disregarded. 

evapectov éatw] ‘is well pleasing, 
commendable” The received text 
supplies this adjective with a dative 
of reference r@ Kupio (from Hphes. 
Vv. 10), but ev Kupie is unquestionably 
the right reading. With the reading 
thus corrected evapeortov, like avijxev 
ver. 18, must be taken absolutely, 
as perhaps in Rom. xii. 2 ro OeAnua 
Tov Geov TO dyafoy Kal evapectoy kal 
réNecov: comp. Phil. iv. 8 dca ceva 
...dca mpoopiry. The qualification 
év Kupio implies ‘as judged by a 
Christian standard” ‘as judged by 
those who are members of Christ’s 
body.’ 

21. epebicere] ‘provoke, irritate? 
The other reading mapopyi¢ere has 
higher support, but is doubtless taken 
from the parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 4. 
‘Irritation’ is the first consequence of 
being too exacting with children, and 
irritation leads to moroseness (d6v- 
pia). In 2 Cor. ix. 2 épeOifew is used 
in a good sense and produces the 
opposite result, not despondency but 
energy. 

abupaow] ‘lose heart, become spi- 
ritless,” i.e. ‘go about their task 
in a listless, moody, sullen frame of 
mind.” ‘Fractus animus, says Ben- 
gel, ‘pestis juventutis.” In Xen. Cyr. 
i. 6. 13 dOvpia is opposed to mpobvyia, 
and in Thue. ii. 88 and elsewhere 
dévpeiv is opposed to Oapceiv. 


15—2 


228 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


(III. 23 


~ \ / , \ > > i} ¢ 

Tois KaTa oapKa kupioi, py év OPOadpodovdrcia ws 
> / , 

dvOpwraperkot, GAN €v dmAoOTHTL Kapdias, oBoupevor 


tov Kupiov. 


¢ > i = 2 / € 
36 dav mote, éx Wuxns épyalerbe ws 


22. év dp0arpodouvrelacs. 


22—iv. 1. ‘Ye slaves, be obedient 
in all things to the masters set over 
you in the flesh, not rendering them 
service only when their eyes are upon 
you, as aiming merely to please men, 
but serving in all sincerity of heart, as 
living in the sight of your Heavenly 
Master and standing in awe of Him. 
And in everything that ye do, work 
faithfully and with all your soul, as 
labouring not for men, but for the 
great Lord and Master Himself; know- 
ing that ye have a Master, from whom 
ye will receive the glorious inheritance 
as your recompense, whether or not 
ye may be defrauded of your due by 
men. Yes, Christ is your Master and 
ye are his slaves. He that does a 
wrong shall be requited for his wrong- 
doing. I say not this of slaves only, 
but of masters also. There is no par- 
tiality, no respect of persons, in God’s 
distribution of rewards and punish- 
ments. Therefore, ye masters, do ye 
also on your part deal justly and equi- 
tably by your slaves, knowing that ye 
too have a Master in heaven.’ 

22.. Oi dSovAx] The relations of 
masters and slaves, both here and in 
the companion epistle (Ephes. vi. 
5—9), are treated at greater length 
than is usual with St Paul. Here 
especially the expansion of this topic, 
compared with the brief space assign- 
ed to the duties of wives and husbands 
(vv. 18, 19), or of children and parents 
(vv. 20, 21), deserves to be noticed. 
‘The fact is explained by a contempo- 
rary incident in the Apostle’s private 
life. His intercourse with Onesimus 
had turned his thoughts in this di- 
rection. See above, p.33, and the in- 
troduction to the Epistle to Philemon: 
comp. also the note on ver. II. 

opOarpodovrcia] ‘eye-service,” as 
Ephes, vi. 6: comp. Apost. Const. iv. 


I2 pr os oPOadpddovros GAN os gu- 
odéororos. This happy expression 
would seem to be the Apostle’s own 
coinage. At least there are no traces 
of it earlier. Compare éedoOpnekeia 
ii. 23. The reading dp@adpodovreia 
is better supported than odéadpodov- 
Aeiacs, though the plural is rendered 
slightly more probable in itself by its 
greater difficulty. 

dvOpwrapecxo|] Again in Ephes. vi. 
6. It is a Lxx word, Ps. lii. 6, where 
the Greek entirely departs from the 
Hebrew: comp. also avépamapecketv 
Ign. Rom. 2, avOpwrapéckera Justin 
Apol.i.2 (p. 53 E). So dxAoapécns 
or dxAoapeckos, Timo Phiias. in Diog. 
Laert. iv. 42 (vv. 11). 

amornre kapdias| As in Ephes. vi. 5, 
i.e. ‘with wndivided service’; a LXx 
expression, I Chron. xxix. 17, Wisd.i.1. 

Tov Kupwov] ‘the one Lord and 
Master, as contrasted with rois cara 
odpka kupios: the idea being carried 
out in the following verses. The re- 
ceived text, by substituting tov Qecop, 
blunts the edge of the contrast. 

23. épyatecbe] i.e. ‘do it dili- 
gently, an advance upon ro:jre. 

ovk dvOpemros| For the use of ov 
rather than p7 in antitheses, see Wi- 
ner § lv. p. 601 sq. The negative 
here is wholly unconnected with the 
imperative, and refers solely to ro 
Kupio. 

24. do Kupiov] ‘ However you may 
be treated by your earthly masters, 
you have still @ Master who will re- 
compense you.’ The absence of tho 
definite article here (comp. iv. 1) is 
the more remarkabie, because it is 
studiously inserted in the context, vv. 
22—24, tov Kupiov, T@ Kupig, r@ Kv- 
pio. In the parallel passage Hphes. 
vi. 8 it is mapa Kvupiov: for the differ- 
ence between the two see Gal. i, 12. 


LIT. 24, 25] 


EPISTLE TO THI COLOSSIANS. 229 


~ la id/ A 
To Kupiw, kai ovk dvOpwroas, *eid0Tes OT dro Kupiov 
’ "A \ > / - , ~ 
aroAnpryerOe tiv dvtTarodocw Tis KAnpovouiass Te 
, ~~ } VA 2 25 € \ i) ~ y ed 
Kupiw Xpiot@ SovAevete? 50 yap adikav KopioeTat O 


TY avrarcdocw]| ‘the just recom- 
pense,’ a common word both in the 
Lxx and in classical writers, though 
not occurring elsewhere in the New 
Testament; comp. dvramodoua Luke 
xiv. 12, Rom. xi. 9. The double com- 
pound involves the idea of ‘exact re- 
quital.’ 

Tis KAnpovopias] ‘which consists in 
the inheritance, the genitive of appo- 
sition: see the note on rv pepida rod 
kAnpov, i. 12. There isa paradox in- 
volved in this word: elsewhere the 
SodAos and the xAnpovopos are con- 
trasted (Matt. xxi. 35—38, etc., Rom. 
Vili. 15—17, Gal. iv. 1, 7), but here 
the dodAos is the kAnpovouos. This he 
is because, though doddos avOperear, he 
is deevOepos Kupiov (1 Cor. vii. 22) 
and thus xAnpovopyos da Ccod (Gal. iv. 
7); comp. Hermas Sim. v. 2 iva ovy- 
KAnpovouos yévnrat o SovAos TO vid 
(with the context). 

T@ Kupio x.7.A.] Le. 6 you serve as 
your master the great Master Christ, 
This clause is added to explain how 
is meant by the preceding azo Kupiov. 
For this application of Kvpios com- 
pare (besides the parallel passage, 
fiphes. vi. 6—9) 1 Cor. vii. 22 6 yap 
ev Kupio kdyeis SovAos dmedevbepos 
Kupiov €otiy x.7.A. It seems best to 
take dovAevere here as an indicative, 
rather than as an imperative; for (1) 
The indicative is wanted to explain 
the previous dé Kupiov; (2) The i im- 
perative would seem to require os rd 
Kupi, as in Ephes. vi. 7 (the corr ect 
text). On the other hand see Rom. 
xii. II. 

25. 6 yap ddikov «7.A.] Who is 
this unrighteous person? The slave 
who defrauds his master of his ser- 
vice, or the master who defrauds his 
slave of his reward? Some interpret- 
ers confine it exclusively to the for- 
mer; others to the latter. It seems 


best to suppose that both are included. 
The connexion of the sentence 6 yap 
adcxav (where yap, not dé, is certainly 
the right reading) points to the slave. 
On the other hand the expression 
which follows, rd Sikavov Kat tiv ico- 
TyTa K.T.A., Suggests the master. Thus 
there seems to be a twofold reference ; 
the warning is suggested by the case 
of the slave, but it is extended to the 
case of the master; and this accords 
with the > parallel passage, Ephes. , vi. 8 
€kaaTos 6 ay Toon dyaboy TOUTO Kopi- 
oerat mapa Kupiov, etre dovAos etre 
éeXevOepos. 

The recent fault of Onesimus would 
make the Apostle doubly anxious to 
emphasize the duties of the slave to- 
wards the master, lest in his love for 
the offender he should seem to con- 
done the offence. This same word 
nodikyoev is used by St Paul to describe 
the crime of Onesimus in Philem. 18. 
But on the other hand it is the Apo- 
stle’s business to show that justice 
has a double edge. There must be a 
reciprocity between the master and 
the slave. The philosophers of Greece 
taught, and the laws of Rome assumed, 
that the slave was a chattel. Buta 
chattel could have no rights. It would 
be absurd to talk of treating a chattel 
with justice. St Paul places the rela- 
tions of the master and the slave in a 
wholly different light. Justice and 
equity are the expression of the Di- 
vine mind: and with God there is no 
mpocamoAnpyia. With Him the claims 
of the slave are as real as the claims 
of the master. 

kopioerat] For this sense of the 
middle, ‘to recover,’ ‘to get back,’ 
and so (with an accusative of the thing 
to be recompensed), ‘to be requited 
for’, see e.g. Lev. Xx. 17 duapriav Kope- 
ovvrat, 2 Cor. v. 10 Koulonra éxactos 
ta Ova tov owpatos; comp. Barnab, 


230 


297 \ > a / 
noliKnoev, Kal OUK EoTIV TpocwmoAnpYia. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[IV. x 


LVeA* Ot 


, \ , \ \ Sy, = , l 
Kuplol, TO OlKaLOV Kat THV lOOTHTA TOLLS OovAols Ta E- 


6 i} , </ SCE 0) 2Yg K , 2 ’ - 
XET E, ELOOTES OTL KAL UMELS EX ETE uployv EV OvpaVvw. 


§ 4 6 Kupios drpocwmoAnumras Kpivet 
tov Koopov’ €xactos, Kabas ertoincer, 
koutetrat. In the parallel passage 
Kphes. vi. 8, the form is certainly xo- 
pioerac: here it is more doubtful, the 
authorities being more equally divided 
between kopeirac and Kopioerar. See 
however the note on yrwpicovow iv. 9. 

mpocwmoAnpyyia] On this word see 
the note Gal.ii. 6. This tpoowmoAnp- 
Via, though generally found on the 
side of rank and power, may also be 
exercised in favour of the opposite ; 
Ley. xix. 15 ov AnWn mpocwmoy troe- 
xov ovde py Oavpdons mpdcwmoy dvva- 
atov. There would be a tendency in 
the mind of the slave to assume that, 
because the zpocemoAnuyia of man 
was on the side of the master, there 
must be a corresponding mpocwzo- 
Anuyia of God on the side of the 
slave. This assumption is corrected 
by St Paul. 

IV. 1. rv icornral ‘ equity, ‘fair- 
ness’; comp. Plut. Sol. et Popl. Comp. 3 
vonwv icotnta mapeyoyvtav. Somewhat 
similarly Lysias Or. Fun. 77 (speak- 
ing of death) ovre yap rovs rovnpovs 
Umepopa ovte tovs dyabovs Oavydcer, 
GAN tcov €avtov mapéxee maow. 
It seems a mistake to suppose that 
ioorns here has anything to do with 
the treatment of slaves as equals 
(comp. Philem. 16). When connected 
with 76 dixaoy, the word naturally sug- 
gests an even-handed, impartial treat- 
ment, and is equivalent to the Latin 
aequitas: comp. Arist. Top. vi. 5 (p. 
143) 6 rHy Stxaroovrny (Aéyor) Céw ico- 
THTOS ToinTeKHy 7 OvavepnTLKnY TOV LoOV, 
Philo de Creat. Prine. 14 (1. p. 373) 
€ort yap iodrns...untnp dixacocvyns, 
Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 6 (p. 764) pera 
Stkaocvyns Kai iadrnros THs mpos Tovs 
emiotpépovras. Thus in Arist. Eth. 
Nic. Vv. 1 76 Sixaoy and 16 icov are 
regarded as synonymes, and in Plut. 


Mor. p. 719 the relation of iodrns to 
duxatorns is discussed. The word here 
is used in the same sense in which the 
adjective occurs in the common ex- 
pressions toos Oucacrns, toos axpoatns, 
etc. Philo, describing the Essene 
condemnation of slavery, says, Omn. 
prob. lib. 12 (I. p. 457) xataywookovci 
te tay Seomoray, ov povoy ws abikor, 
ioornta Avpatvopévwy, GANA kai Ws ace- 
Boy x.7.r., but he possibly does mean 
‘equality’ rather than * equity.’ 
mapexerbe] ‘exhibit on your part. 
The middle rapéxyeo Oa, ‘to afford from 
oneself, will take different shades of 
meaning according to the context, as 
‘to furnish one’s quota’ (e.g. Herod. 
Vili. I, 2) or ‘to put forward one’s re- 
presentative’ (esp. of witnesses, e.g. 
Plato Apol. 19 D). Here the idea is 
‘reciprocation,’ the master’s duty as 
corresponding to the slave’s. 

éxete Kiptov] As Ephes. vi. 9; comp. 
I Cor. vii. 22 0 eAevOepos KAnGeis Sov- 
Ads €orw Xpicrov. 

2—6. ‘Be earnest and unceasing 
in prayer; keep your heartsand minds 
awake while praying: remember also 
(as I have so often told you) that 
thanksgiving is the goal and crown of 
prayer. Meanwhile in your petitions 
forget notus—myself Paul—my fellow- 
labourer Timothy —- your evangelist 
Epaphras— all the teachers of the 
Gospel ; but pray that God may open 
a door for the preaching of the word, 
to the end that we may proclaim the 
free offer of grace to the Gentiles— 
that great mystery of Christ for which 
I am now a prisoner in bonds. So 
shall I declare it fearlessly, as I am 
bound to proclaim it. Walk wisely 
and discreetly in all your dealings with 
unbelievers; allow no opportunity to 
slip through your hands, but buy up 
every passing moment. Let your lan- 
guage be always pervaded with grace 


IV. 2—4] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 230 


°Ty mporevyn mpooKapTepEtTe, ypnyopourTes ev 
auTi év evyapioTia® 3mpomevyomeEvolr dua Kal Tepl jMe@r, 
iva 6 Qeos avolEn ruiv Ovpav Tov Adyouv, AaAnoat TO 
puaTipioy TOU Xpiotov, Ov O Kal dédeua *iva pave- 


and seasoned with salt. So will you 
know how to give a fit answer to each 
man, as the occasion demands.’ 

2. mpocxaprepetre| ‘cling closely 
to’, ‘remain constant to’ (comp. Mark 
ili. 9, Acts viii. 13, x. 7), and so ‘con- 
tinue stedfast in.’ This word occurs 
again with rj mpocevy7, tais mpocev- 
xais, Acts i. 14, ii. 42, vi. 4, Rom. xii. 
12. The construction is with a simple 
dative both in the New Testament 
(ll. cc.) and in classical writers, except 
where it stands absolutely (Acts ii. 46, 
Rom. xiii. 6). The injunction here 
corresponds to the ddvakeintws mpoc- 
evxeoOe of 1 Thess. v. 17. 

yenyopovrvres] Long continuance in 
prayer is apt to produce listlessness. 
Hence the additional charge that the 
heart must be awake, if the prayer 
is to have any value. The word is not 
to be taken literally here, but meta- 
phorically. In Matt. xxvi. 41 etc., ypn- 
yopeire kat mpocevyeobe, the ideais not 
quite the same. 

ev evyapioria] As the crown of all 
prayer; see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7, 

3. nuov] ‘us, ‘the Apostles and 
preachers of the Gospel,’ with refer- 
ence more especially to Timothy (i. 1) 
and Epaphras (iv. 12, 13). Where 
the Apostle speaks of himself alone, 
he uses the singular (ver. 3, 4 dédeuac; 
avepoow). Indeed there is no rea- 
son to think that St Paul ever uses an 
‘epistolary’ plural, referring to himself 
solely: see on 1 Thess. iii. 1. 

iva x.t..] On the sense of fra after 
mpocevxerOa etc., see the note on i. 9. 

@upay tod doyou] ‘a door of admis- 
sion for the word, i.e. ‘an oppor- 
tunity of preaching the Gospel,’ as 
I Cor. xvi. 9 6vpa yap po dvémyev 
Heyadn Kat évepyns, 2 Cor. ii. 12 
Ovpas poe dvewypévns év Kupio: comp. 


Plut. Mor. p. 674 D damep wvAns av- 
otxdeions, ovK avrécyor...cuveroiovcr 
mavtodarois dxpoduacu. Similarly etoo- 
dos is used in 1 Thess. i. 9, ii. 1. The 
converse application of the metaphor 
appears in Acts xiv. 27 #vor€ev roils 
eOveow Oupay micrews, where the door 
is opened not to the teachers, but to 
the recipients of the Gospel. Accord- 
ing to another interpretation (suggest- 
ed by Ephes. vi. 19 iva por 5069 Adyos 
€v dvoife. Tov oropards pov) it is ex- 
plained ‘the door of our speech, i.e. 
‘our mouth’: comp. Ps. exli (cxl). 3, 
Mic. vii. 5, Ecclus. xxviii. 25. But the 
parallel passages do not favour this 
sense, nor will the words themselves 
admit it. In that case for piv dvpav 
Tov Adyou we should require rv bvpav 
Tov Aoyov [jporv]. ‘The word’ here is 
‘the Gospel,’ as frequently. 

Aadjoa] ‘so as to speak, the in- 
finitive of the consequence, like eiSévas 
ver. 6; see Winer § xliv. p. 400. 

TO puoTnpLoy k.T.A.] i.e. the doctrine 
of the free admission of the Gentiles. 
For the leading idea which St Paul 
in these epistles attaches to ‘the mys- 
tery’ of the Gospel, see the note on 
i, 26: 

d¢ 6] St Paul might have been still 
at large, if he had been content to 
preach a Judaic Gospel. It was be- 
cause he contended for Gentile liberty, 
and thus offended Jewish prejudices, 
that he found himself a prisoner. See 
Acts xxi. 28, xxii, 21, 22, xxiy. 5, 6, 
xxy. 6, 8. The other reading, 8? ov, 
destroys the point of the sentence. 

kat Sedenut] 2 Tim. ii. 9 péype dec- 
pov, Philem. 9 vuvi d€ kat déopuos. 

4. wa avepdow x.rr.] This is 
best taken as dependent on the pre- 
vious clause iva 6 Gecds...ro Xpucrod. 
For instances of a double iva, where 


232 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[IV. 5, 6 


pwow auto, ws det pe NaAnoa. ev copia TEPLTATELTE 
\ \ xf Mt \ 5) / 3 6.6 Fe 
mpos Tous &w, Tov Kaipov eEayopaCouevory °O Aoyos 


the second is not coordinated with, 
but subordinated to, the first, see the 
note on Gal. iii, 14. The immediate 
purport of the Colossians’ prayers 
must be that the Apostle should have 
all opportunities of preaching the 
Gospel: the ulterior object, that he 
should use these opportunities boldly. 

5. év copia] Matt. x. 16 yiveode 
ovv Ppovipot ws of ders. 

rovs ¢&w] ‘those without the pale’ 
of the Church, the unbelievers; as in 
1 Cor. v. 12, 13, 1 Thess. iv. 12. So oi 
ééwOev, I Tim. iii. 7. The believers on 
the other hand are oi éva, I Cor. v. 12. 
This mode of speaking was derived 
from the Jews, who called the heathen 
OS (Schéttgen on 1 Cor. J. c.), 
translated oi éxrés Ecclus. Prol. and 
oi €£wOev Joseph. Ant. xv. 9. 2. 

eayopafouevot k.t.A.] ‘buying up 
the opportunity for yourselves, let- 
ting no opportunity slip you, of saying 
and doing what may further the cause 
of God’: comp. Ephes. v. 16. The ex- 
pression occurs also in Dan. ii. 8 ofa 
OTe Katpov vpeis eEayopacere, i.e. ‘are 
eager to gain time. Somewhat simi- 
lar are the phrases roy xpovor Kepdai- 
ve, TO Tapov Kepdaivew. So too Seneca 
Ep. i. 1 ‘Tempus...collige et serva.’ 
In much the same sense Ignatius says, 
Polyc. 3 robs catpovs katrapavOave. For 
this sense of ¢£ayopa¢w ‘coemo’ (closely 
allied in meaning to cuvayopalo), see 
Polyb. iii. 42. 2 €nyopace map’ avrav 
Ta Te povofvAa mAoia mavra K.T.d., 
Plut. Vit. Crass.2. More commonly 
the word signifies ‘to redeem’ (see the 
note on Gal. iii. 13), and some would 
assign this sense to it here; but no ap- 
propriate meaning is thus obtained. In 
Mart. Polyc. 2 8a pas dpas tH aid- 
ov KoAaow e€ayopatonevor it means 
‘buying off, a sense in which ¢&avei- 
oGa occurs several times. The reason 
for the injunction is added in Ephes. 
Vv. 16, Ore ai nucpat mrovnpai ciow: the 


prevailing evil of the times makes the 
opportunities for good more precious. 

6. €v xdpiti] ‘with grace, favour, 
i.e. ‘acceptableness,’ ‘ pleasingness’; 
comp. Eccles. x. 12 Aoyor oroparos 
copov xapis, Ps. xliv (xlv). 3 e&eyvn 
xapis ev xeiheot cov, Ecclus. xxi. 16 eri 
xethous ouverou evpeOnoerat xapis. In 
classical writers yapis Adyov is a still 
more common connexion; e.g. Demosth. 
c. Phil. i. 38, Dionys. Hal. de Lys. 
§§ 10, 11, Plut. Vit. Mar. 44. 

ddazt] Comp. Mark ix. 50 €av d€ ro 
ddas dvadoy yévnta, ev tiv avro 
aptvaerte; €xere ev éavtois dda. The 
salt has a twofold purpose. (1) It 
gives a flavour to the discourse and 
recommends it to the palate: comp. 
Job vi. 6 ef BpwOnoerac aptros dvev 
ados; ef dé Kal ote yedpa ev prpace 
kevois; in which passage the first 
clause was rendered by Symmachus 
pyte BpwOnoerat dvaptutoy To py 
éxew dda; This is the primary idea 
of the metaphor here, as the word 7p- 
Tupevos seems to show. (2) It preserves 
from corruption and renders whole- 
some; Ign. Magn. 10 ddicOnre ev 
avT@ wa pH SiapOapy tis ev wvyiv, 
€met amd THS ooMAs edeyxOnoeobe. 
Hence the Pythagorean saying, Diog. 
Laert. viii. I. 35 of addes wav cafovow 
6 tt Kal mapadkdBowor. It may be in- 
ferred that this secondary applica- 
tion of the metaphor was present to 
the Apostle’s mind here, because in 
the parallel epistle, Ephes. iv. 29, he 
Say8 mas Aoyos Gampos é€k TOU oTO- 
patos vay py ekropevedOo x7.A. In 
the first application the opposite to 
GXart nptupevos Would be popes ‘in- 
sipid’ (Luke xiy. 34); in the second, 
campos ‘corrupt.’ 

Heathen writers also insisted that 
discourse should be ‘seasoned with 
salt’; e.g. Cic. de Orat. i. 34 ‘facetia- 
rum quidam lepos quo, tanquam sale, 
perspergatur omnis oratio. They 


IV. 7] 


EPISTLE TO TIE COLOSSIANS. 233 


e ~ Id > if e/ > f AY, c ~ 
UMWY TAVTOTE EV KaPLTL, ANATL HOTUMEVOS, ELOEVaL UMA 


~ me No Ve / ’ / 
Tws O€f Eve EKaoTw amroKpiver Oat. 
GI \ > > \ / , , € > 
Ta kav’ €ue mavTa yvwpioe: vuty Tuxixos 0 aya- 


likewise dwelt on the connexion be- 
tween yapis and des; e.g. Plut. Mor. 
Pp. 514 F yapw twa mapackevagortes 
GdAjols, @omep adat Tois Noyors epy- 
Suvovar thy ScatpiBnv, p.697 D (comp. p. 
685 A) of moAXol yapiras Kadodow [rov 
Gda], ore emt ta mAeioTa pryvipevos 
eUdppoota TH yevoet Kal TpoTiAf mrovet 
kat Kexapiopeva, p. 669 A 7 O€ Tav ddav 
Svvauus...xapw avt@ kali ndoviy mpoc- 
riOnot, Dion Chrys. Or. xviii. § 13. 
Their notion of ‘salt’ however was 
wit, and generally the kind of wit 
which degenerated into the evrpame- 
Aia denounced by St Paul in Ephes. 
vy. 4 (see the note there). 

The form ddas is common in the 
Lxx and Greek Testament. Other- 
wise it is rare: see Buttmann Gramm. 
I. p. 220, and comp. Plut. Mor. 668 Fr. 

eidévar] ‘so as to know’; see the note 
on AaAjoa Ver. 3. 

évi éxdot@] ‘Not only must your 
conversation be opportune as regards 
the time; it must also be appropriate 
as regards the person.’ The Apostle’s 
precept was enforced by his own ex- 
ample, for he made it a rule to be- 
come Trois magw mayta, iva ravtas TI- 
vas o@on (I Cor, ix. 22). 

7—9. ‘You will learn everything 
about me from Tychicus, the beloved 
brother who has ministered to me 
and served with me faithfully in the 
Lord. This indeed was my purpose 
in sending him to you: that you might 
be informed how matters stand with 
me, and that he might cheer your 
hearts and strengthen your resolves 
by the tidings. Onesimus will accom- 
pany him—a faithful and beloved bro- 
ther, who is one of yourselves, a Co- 
lossian. These two will inform you of 
all that is going on here’ 

7. Ta kar’ eye mavra] ‘all that 
relates to me’; see the note on 
Phil. i. 12,"and comp. Bion in Diog. 


Laert. iv. 47. So Acts xxv. 14 ra xard 
Tov IlavAov. 

yvopicer] On this word see the 
note Phil. i. 22. 

Tuxtxos] Tychicus was charged by 
St Paul at this same time with a more 
extended mission. He was entrusted 
with copies of the circular letter, 
which he was enjoined to deliver in 
the principal churches of proconsular 
Asia (see above, p. 37, and the intro- 
duction to the Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians). This mission would bring him 
to Laodicea, which was one of these 
great centres of Christianity (see p. 8); 
and, as Colossze was only a few miles 
distant, the Apostle would naturally 
engage him to pay a visit to the Co- 
lossians. At the same time the pre- 
sence of an authorised delegate of St 


~ Paul, as Tychicus was known to be, 


would serve to recommend Onesimus, 
who owing to his former conduct 
stood in every need of such a recom- 
mendation. The two names Tuytkos 
and ’Ovyjouos occur in proximity in 
Phrygian inscriptions found at Alten- 
tash (Bennisoa?) Boeckh 3857r sq. 
appx. 

Tychicus was a native of proconsu- 
lar Asia (Acts xx. 4) and perhaps of 
Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 12: see Philippi- 
ans p. 11) He is found with St Paul 
at three different epochs in his life, 
(1) He accompanied him when on 
his way eastward at the close of the 
third missionary journey 4.D. 58 (Acts 
xx. 4), and probably like Trophimus 
(Acts xxi. 29) went with him to Jeru- 
salem (for the words dyp: rs "Acias 
must be struck out in Acts xx. 4). It 
is probable indeed that Tychicus, to- 
gether with others mentioned among 
St Paul’s numerous retinue on this 
occasion, was a delegate appointed by 
his own church according to the Apo- 
stle’s injunctions (1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4) to 


234 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[IV. 8 


\ of \ 4 \ 2 > 
wyTos adeApos Kat TLoTOS 6iakovos Kal GivoouNos év 


Kupiw: *dv émeurba sapos 
bear the contributions of his brethren 
to the poor Christians of Judsea; and 
if so, he may possibly be the person 
commended as the brother ov 6 éra- 
vos €v T@ evayyeNi Oia Tacay TaV ék- 
kAnutov (2 Cor. viii. 18): but this will 
depend on the interpretation of the 
best supported reading in Acts xx. 5 
ovrot d€ mpocedOovres ewevoy nuas év 
Tpwadi. (2) We find Tychicus again 
in St Paul’s company at the time with 
which we are immediately concerned, 
when this epistle was written, proba- 
bly towards the end of the first Ro- 
man captivity, A.D. 62, 63 (see Philip- 
pians p. 31 8q.). (3) Once more, at the 
close of St Paul’s life (about a.p. 67), 
he appears again to have associated 
himself with the Apostle, when his 
name is mentioned in connexion witii 
a mission to Crete (Tit. iii. 12) and 
another to Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 12). 
For the legends respecting him, which 
are slight and insignificant, see Act. 
Sanct. Boll. April 29 (m1. p. 619). 
Tychicus is not so common a name 
as some others which occur in the 
New Testament, e.g. Onesimus, Tro- 
phimus; but it is found occasionally 
in inscriptions belonging to Asia Mi- 
nor, e.g. Boeckh C. I. 2918, 3665, 
[3857 c], 3857 r, (comp. 3865 i, etc.); 
and persons bearing it are commemo- 
rated on the coins of both Magnesia 
ad Maeandrum (Mionnet 111. p. 153 sq., 
Suppl. vi. p. 236) and Magnesia ad 
Sipylum (i. Iv. p. 70). The name 
occurs also in Roman inscriptions; e.g. 
Muratori, pp. DOCCOXVII, MCOCXCIV, 
MMLY. Along with several other 
proper names similarly formed, this 
word is commonly accentuated Tuyxexds 
(Chandler Greek Accentuation § 255), 
and so it stands in all the critical 
editions, though according to rule 
(Winer § vi. p. 58) it should be Tuxtkos. 
kat muoros k.7.A.| The connexion of 
the words is not quite obvious. It 
seems best however to take év Kupio 


Uuas €ls aVTO TOTO, iva 
as referring to the whole clause muorés 
Oudkovos kat advOovdos rather than to 
avvdovdos alone: for (1) The two sub- 
stantives are thus bound together by 
the preceding micros and the following 
ev Kupio in a natural way: (2) The at- 
tachment of év Kupio to motos dtako- 
vos is suggested by the parallel pas- 
sage Ephes. Vi. 21 TuyuKos 6 dyanntos 
adehhos kat mords dudxovos ev Kupio. 
The question of connecting év Kupio 
with adeh pos as well need 1 not be en- 
tertained, since the idea of ddehdis, 
‘a Christian brother,’ is complete in 
itself: see the note on Phil.i.14. The 
adjective mores will here have its 
passive sense, ‘trustworthy, sted fast,’ 
as also in ver. 9: see Galatians p. 
154 sq. 

duaxovos] ‘iminister,” but to whom? 
To the churches, or to St Paul him- 
self? The following ovvdovdos sug- 
gests the latter as the prominent idea 
here. So in Acts xix. 22 Timothy and 
Erastus are described as dvo0 rév d:a- 
kovovvtwy ait. Tychicus himself also 
was one of several who ministered to 
St Paul about that same time (Acts 
xx. 4). It is not probable however, 
that dcdxovos has here its strict official 
sense, ‘a deacon,’ as in Rom. xvi. 1, 
Phil}. 23 1 Timea, 12: 

auvdovros}| The word does not oc- 
cur elsewhere in St Paul, except in 
i. 7, where it is said of Epaphras. It is 
probably owing to the fact of St Paul's 
applying the term in both these pas- 
sages to persons whom he calls d:axo- 
vot, that civdovdAos seems to have been 
adopted as a customary form of ad- 
dress in the early Church on the part 
of a bishop, when speaking of a deacon. 
In the Ignatian letters for instance, 
the term is never used except of dea- 
cons; Ephes. 2, Magn. 2, Philad. 4, 
Smyrn. 12. Where the martyr has 
occasion to speak of a bishop or a 
presbyter some other designation is 
used instead. 


IV. 9] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


235 


a \ \ e lo \ if \ 4 ¢ c 
YVWTE mee TWEOL MOV Kat TapakaXery Tas Kapoias UMW), 


9 \ b} , OC qt 
cuy Ovyoimw Toe miTTH 


ECT EF ULOY. 

8. emeuwa] ‘I send) or ‘I have 
seni, eémepa being the epistolary 
aorist; see the note on ¢ypawa, Gal. 
vi. 11. Tychicus appears to have ac- 
companied the letter itself. For simi- 
lar instances of the epistolary émreuwa, 
ereorewAa, etc., see 2 Cor. viii. 18, 22, 
ix. 3, Ephes. vi. 22, Phil. ii. 25, 28, 
Philem. 11, Hebr. xiii. 22, Polyc. 
Phil. 13. 

yore Ta wept juay| This must be 
preferred to the received reading, yr 
Ta tept vuav, for two independent 
reasons. (1) The preponderance of 
ancient authority is decidedly in its 
favour. (2) The emphatic eis avro 
tovro iva seems imperatively to de- 
mand it. St Paul in the context 
twice states the object of Tychicus’ 
visit to be that the Colossians miglit 
be informed about the Apostle’s own 
doings, ra kar’ €ué mavra yrvwpioes vpiv 
(ver. 7), and ravra vpiv yrepicovew Ta 
ode. He could hardly therefore have 
described ‘the very purpose’ of his 
mission in the same breath as some- 
thing quite different. 

It is urged indeed, that this is a 
scribe’s alteration to bring the passage 
into accordance with Ephes. vi. 21. 
But against this it may fairly be ar- 
gued that, on any hypothesis as re- 
gards the authorship and relation of 
the two letters, this strange varia- 
tion from yrdre ra wept jay to yrd 
Ta wept vuov in the author himself is 
improbable. On the other hand a 
transcriber was under a great temp- 
tation to substitute yv@ for yydre ow- 
ing to the following mapaxadéon, and 
this temptation would become almost 
irresistible, if by any chance epi tuay 
had been written for rept judy in the 
copy before him, as we find to be the 
case in some mss. See the detached 
note on various readings, 

mapakadéon x«.T.A.] ie. ‘encourage 


/ -~ 
TWAaVTA UE 


\ 3 ~ > a «/ 
Kal ayamnTw aoeAha, os 
7, \ ©. 
yywpicovelw Ta woe. 


you to persevere by his tidings and ex- 
hortations.” The phrase occurs again, 
Hphes. vi. 22,2 Thess, ii. 17: see above 
ii.2. The prominent idea in all these 
passages is not comfort or consolation 
but perseverance in the right way. 

9. atv ’Ovncin@] See above, p. 33, 
and the introduction to the Epistle to 
Philemon. 

TO TLoT@ «.tT.A.] The man whom the 
Colossians had only known hitherto, 
if they knew him at all, as a worthless 
runaway slave, is thus commended to 
them as no more a slave but a brother, 
no more dishonest and faithless but 
trustworthy, no more an object of con- 
tempt but of love; comp. Philem. 11, 
16. 

yvopicovow] This form has rather 
better support from the mss than 
yvwp.ovow: see also above iii. 25. On 
the Attic future from verbs in -c¢@ in 
the Greek Testament generally see 
Winer § xiii. p. 88, A. Buttmann p. 32 
sq. Is there any decisive instance of 
these Attic forms in St Paul, except in 
quotations from the Lxx (e.g. Rom. x. 
19, Xv. 12) 

1o—14. ‘I send you greeting from 
Aristarchus who is a fellow-prisoner 
with me; from Marcus, Barnabas’ 
cousin, concerning whom I have al- 
ready sent you directions, that you 
welcome him heartily, if he pays you 
a visit; and from Jesus, surnamed 
Justus; all three Hebrew converts. 
They alone of their fellow-countrymen 
have worked loyally with me in spread- 
ing the kingdom of God; and their 
stedfastness has indeed been a com- 
fort to me in the hour of trial. Greet- 
ing also from Epaphras, your fellow- 
townsman, a true servant of Christ, 
who is ever wrestling in his prayers on 
your behalf, that ye may stand firm 
in the faith, perfectly instructed and 
fully convinced in every will and pur- 


230 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[IV. 10 


Ste ~ , , 
'’AowaceTat vuas “Apistapyos 6 ouvatypadwros 


pose of God. I bear testimony to the 
earnestness with which he labours for 
you and the brethren of Laodicea and 
those of Hierapolis. Greeting also 
trom Luke the physician, my very 
dear friend, and from Demas.’ 

10. The salutations to Philemon 
are sent from the same persons as to 
the Colossians, except that in the 
former case the name of Jesus Justus 
is omitted. 

’Apicrapxos| the Thessalonian. He 
had started with St Paul on his voy- 
age from Jerusalem to Rome, but 
probably had parted from the Apostle 
at Myra (see Philippians p. 33 8q.). 
If so, he must have rejoined him 
at Rome at a later date. On this 
Aristarchus see Philippians p. 10, 
and the introduction to the Epistles 
to the Thessalonians. He would be 
well known in proconsular Asia, which 
he had visited from time to time; 
Acts xix. 29, xX. 4, XXVii. 2. 

ovvatyyddwtos pov] In Philem. 23 
this honourable title is withheld from 
Aristarchus and given to Epaphras. 
{In Rom. xvi. 7 St Paul’s kinsmen, 
Andronicus and Junias, are so called. 
On the possibility of its referring to a 
spiritual captivity or subjection see 
Philippians p. 11. In favour of this 
meaning it may be urged, that, though 
St Paul as a prisoner was truly a déc- 
pos, he was not strictly an aiypdadwros 
‘a prisoner of war’; nor could he have 
called himself so, except by a confu- 
sion of the actual and metaphorical. 
If on the other hand cvvatypadwros 
refers to a physical captivity, it cannot 
easily be explained by any known fact. 
The incident in Acts xix. 29 is hardly 
adequate. The most probable solu- 
tion would be, that his relations with 
St Paul in Rome excited suspicion 
and led to a temporary confinement. 
Another possible hypothesis is that 
he voluntarily shared the Apostle’s 
captivity by living with him. 

Mapxos| doubtless John Mark, who 


had been associated with St Paul in 
his earlier missionary work; Acts xii. 
25, xv. 37 8q. This commendatory 
notice is especially interesting as be- 
ing the first mention of him since the 
separation some twelve years before, 
Acts xv. 39. In the later years of the 
Apostle’s life he entirely effaced the 
unfavourable impression left by his 
earlier desertion ; 2 Tim.iv.11 €or yap 
pot evxpnoros eis Staxoviay. 

This notice is likewise important in 
two other respects. (1) Mark appears 
here as commended to a church of 
proconsular Asia, and intending to 
visit those parts. To the churches of 
this same region he sends a salutation 
in 1 Pet. v. 13; and in this district 
apparently also he is found some few 
years later than the present time, 
2 Tim. iv. 11. (2) Mark is now resid- 
ing at Rome. His connexion with the 
metropolis appears also from : Pet. v. 
13, if BaBvAwy there (as seems most 
probable) be rightly interpreted of 
Rome; and early tradition speaks of 
his Gospel as having been written for 
the Romans (Iren. iii. L 1; comp. 
Papias in Euseb. H. £. iii. 39). 

6 aveyos] ‘the cousin?’ The term 
aveioi is applied to cousins german, 
the children whether of two brothers 
or.of two sisters or of a brother and 
sister, as it is carefully defined in 
Pollux iii. 28. This writer adds that 
avraveyiou. Means neither more nor 
less than dveyuoi. AS & synonyme 
we find efddeAdos, which however is 
condemned as a vulgarism; Phryn. 
p. 306 (ed. Lobeck). Many instances of 
aveyioi are found in different authors 
of various ages (e.g. Herod. vii. 5, 82, 
ix. 10, Thucyd. i. 132, Plato Charm. 
154 B, Gorg. 471 B, Andoc. da Jlyst. 
§ 47, Isaeus Hagn. Her. § 8 s8q., 
Demosth. c. Macart. § 24, 27, etc., 
Dion. Hal. A. &. i. 79, Plut. Vit. Thes. 
7, Vit. Caes. 1, Vit. Brut. 13, Lucian 
Dial. Mort. xxix. 1, Hegesipp. in 
Tuseb. H. E, iv. 22), where the rela- 


IV. 10] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 237 


’ \ / Cp 
pov, Kai Mapxos 6 aveyios BapvaBa, mepi ov éhaBere 


tionship is directly defined or already 
known, and there is no wavering as to 
the meaning. This sense also it has in 
the Lxx, Num. xxxvi. 11. In very late 
writers however (e.g. Io. Malalas 
Chron. xvii. p. 424, lo. Damase. adv. 
Const. Cab. 12, 11. p.621; but in Theodt. 
H, E. v. 39, which is also quoted by 
KE. A. Sophocles Gr. Lex. 8. v. for 
this meaning, the text is doubtful) 
the word comes to be used for a 
nephew, properly ddeAdidots; and 
to this later use the rendering of 
our English versions must be traced. 
The German translations also (Luther 
and the Ziirich) have ‘Neffe’ The 
earliest of the ancient versions (Latin, 
Syriac, Egyptian) seem all to translate 
it correctly ; not so in every case ap- 
parently the later. There is no reason 
to suppose that St Paul would or 
could have used it in any other than 
its proper sense. St Mark’s relation- 
ship with Barnabas may have been 
through his mother Mary, who is men- 
tioned Acts xii. 12. The incidental 
notice here explains why Earnabas 
should have taken a more favourable 
view of Mark’s defection than St 
Paul, Acts xv. 37—39. The notices in 
this passage and in 2 Tim. iv. 11 show 
that Mark had recovered the Apo- 
stle’s good opinion. The studious re- 
commendation of St Mark in both 
passages indicates a desire to efface 
the unfavourable impression of the 
past. 

The name of Mark occurs in five 
different relations, as (1) The early 
disciple, John Mark, Acts xii. 12, 25, 
XV. 39; (2) The later companion of St 
Paul, here and Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 
11; (3) The companion and ‘son’ of 
St Peter, 1 Pet. v. 13; (4) The evan- 
gelist ; (5) The bishop of Alexandria. 
Out of these notices some writers get 
three or even four distinct persons 
(see the note of Cotelier on Apost. 
Const. ii. 57). Even Tillemont (JZem. 
Lcel. 11. p. 89 8q., 503 8q.) assumes two 


Marks, supposing (1) (2) to refer to 
one person, and (3) (4) (5) to another. 
His main reason is that he cannot 
reconcile the notices of the first with 
the tradition (Euseb. H. Z. ii. 15, 16) 
that St Mark the evangelist accom- 
panied St Peter to Rome in a.p. 43, 
having first preached the Gospel in 
Alexandria (p. 515). To most persons 
however this early date of St Peter’s 
visit to Rome will appear quite ir- 
reconcilable with the notices in the 
Apostolic writings, and _ therefore 
with them Tillemont’s argument will 
carry no weight. But in fact Euse- 
bius does not say, either that St Mark 
went with St Peter to Rome, or that 
he had preached in Alexandria before 
this. The Scriptural notices suggest. 
that the same Mark is intended in all 
the occurrences of the name, for they 
are connected together by personal 
links (Peter, Paul, Barnabas); and the 
earliest forms of tradition likewise 
identify them. 

BapvaBa| On the affectionate tone 
of St Paul’s language, whenever he 
mentions Barnabas after the colli- 
sion at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sq.) and 
the separation of missionary spheres 
(Acts xy. 39), see the note on Gal. ii. 
13. It has been inferred from the 
reference here, that inasmuch as Mark 
has rejoined St Paul, Barnabas must 
have died before this epistle was 
written (about A.D. 63); and this has 
been used as an argument against 
the genuineness of the letter bear- 
ing his name (Hefele Sendschr. d. 
Apost. Barnab. p. 29 sq.); but this 
argument is somewhat precarious. 
From 1 Cor. ix.6 we may infer that 
he was still living, a.pD. 57. The 
notices bearing on the biography of 
Barnabas are collected and discussed 
by Hefele, p. 1 sq. 

€hdBere evrodds] These injunctions 
must have been communicated pre- 
viously either by letter or by word of 
mouth: for it cannot be a question 


238 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


LV. Er 


> / \ of \ rod , 

évroNas, ‘Eav €XOy pos vuds, deEacbe av’tov, “kai 
ro € , lod sf ro 

Incovs 0 AEeyouevos “lovaoros, ol OvTEs EK TEpLTOMIs* 

e 2 NaS \ ms tilt 

OUTOL MOVoL GUVEpYol Els THV BactrElay Tou QEoU, oLTIVES 


here of an epistolary aorist. The 
natural inference is, that they were 
sent by St Paul himself, and not by 
any one else, e.g. by St Peter or St 
Barnabas, as some have suggested. 
Thus the notice points to earlier com- 
munications between the Apostle and 
Colossee. 

But what was their tenour? It 
seems best to suppose that this is 
given in the next clause éay €\@y 
«7A. By an abrupt change to the 
oratio recta the injunction is repeat- 
ed as it was delivered; comp. Ps. 
cv (civ). 15 7Aey£ev vmép airav Ba- 
aireis’ M7 dw nobe x.7.A. After verbs 
signifying ‘to command, charge, etc.,’ 
there is a tendency to pass from the 
oblique to the direct; e.g. Luke v. 14, 
Acts i. 4, xxiii. 22. The reading de- 
€acOa gives the right sense, but can 
hardly be correct. If this construc- 
tion be not accepted, it is vain to 
speculate what may have been the 
tenour of the injunction. 

II. kat “Incovs}] He is not men- 
tioned elsewhere. Even in the Epi- 
stle to Philemon his name is omitted. 
Probably he was not a man of any 
prominence in the Church, but his 
personal devotion to the Apostle 
prompted this honourable mention. 
Hor the story which makes him bishop 
of Hleutheropolis in Palestine, see Le 
Quien Oriens Christ. m1. p. 633. 

*Iovoros|_ A common name or sur- 
name of Jews and proselytes, denot- 
ing obedience and devotion to the 
law. Itis applied to two persons in 
the New Testament, besides this Je- 
sus; (1) Joseph Barsabbas, Acts i. 23; 
(2) A proselyte at Corinth, Acts xviii. 
7. It occurs twice in the list of early 
Jewish Christian bishops of Jerusa- 
lem, in Euseb. H. £. iii. 35, iv. 5. It 
was borne by a Jew of Tiberias who 
wrote the history of the Jewish war 


(Joseph. Vit. §§ 9, 65), and by a son 
of the historian Josephus himself (2b. 
$1). It occurs in the rabbinical writ- 
ings (SD) or ‘OD, Schéttgen on 
Acts i. 23, Zunz Judennamen p. 20), 
and in monumental inscriptions from 
Jewish cemeteries in various places 
(Boeckh C. £. no. 9922, 9925; Revue 
Archéologigue 1860, 11. p. 348; Gar- 
rucci Dissertazionit Archeologiche 1. 
p. 182). So also the corresponding 
female name Justa (Garrucci /.c. p. 
180). In Clem. Hom. ii. 19, iii. 73, iv. 
I, xiii. 7, the Syrophcenician woman 
of the Gospels is named ‘lodcra, 
doubtless because she is represented 
in this Judaizing romance as a prose- 
lytess (poonduros xiii. 7) who strictly 
observes the Mosaic ordinances (rny 
voutpov avade~apéevn modsreiay il. 20), 
and is contrasted with the heathen 
‘dogs’ (ra €Oyn é€oixdta xvoiv ii. 19) 
who disregard them. In some cases 
Justus might be the only name of the 
person, as a Latin rendering of the 
Hebrew Zadok; while in others, as 
here and in Acts i. 23, it is a surname. 
Its Greek equivalent, 6 dixaios, is the 
recognised epithet of James the Lord’s 
brother: see Galatians, p. 348. 

of dvres x.7.A.] ie. ‘converts from 
Judaism’ (see the note Gal. ii. 12), 
or perhaps ‘belonging to the Cir- 
cumcision’; but in this latter case 
neptrours, though without the article, 
must be used in a concrete sense, 
like ris meptropfjs, for ‘the Jews.’ 
Of Mark and of Jesus the fact is 
plain from their name or their con- 
nexions. Of Aristarchus we could not 
have inferred a Jewish origin, inde- 
pendently of this direct statement. 

povor] i.e. of the Jewish Christians 
in Rome. On this antagonism of the 
converts from the Circumcision in the 
metropolis, see Philippians p. 16 sq. 
The words however must not be closely 


Ly 12] 


éyernOnoav fo Tapnyopia. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


239 


“aomaceTat Uuas "Eradpas 


ce i9 € es ~ + a , 

0 €& vue, dovAos Xpictov “Incov, mavToTeE aywnCo~ 
lant > an ~~ / ~ 

Mevos UTEM UuwY év Tails TpoTEvyais, iva oTabyTe Té- 


pressed, as if absolutely no Jewish 
Christian besides had remained friend- 
ly; they will only imply that among 
the more prominent members of 
the body the Apostle can only name 
these three as stedfast in their alle- 
giance: comp. Phil. ii. 20 ovdéva exo 
isoWuyoy ... mavres yap x.t.A. (with 
the note). 

tiv BactXeiav x.t.A.] See the note on 
ae i 8 

oirwes x.t.A.| ‘men whom I found 
etc”; comp. Acts xxviii. 15 ovs idov 
6 IlavAos evxapiotncas TH Oew EhaBev 
Oapoos, and see Philippians p. 17. 
For oirives, not specifying the indi- 
viduals, but referring them to their 
class characteristics, see the notes on 
Gal. iv. 24, v. 19, Phil. iii. 7, iv. 3. 

mapnyopia] ‘ encouragement, ‘ com- 
fort. The range of meaning in this 
word is even wider than in mapapv- 
Gia Or mapaxdnors (see the note Phil. 
ii. 1). The verb mapnyopeiy denotes 
either (1) ‘ to exhort, encourage’ (He- 
rod. v. 104, Apoll. Rhod. ii. 64); 
(2) ‘to dissuade’ (Herod. ix. 54, 55); 
(3) ‘to appease,’ ‘quiet’ (Plut. Vit. 
Pomp. 13, Mor. p. 737 ©); or (4) ‘to 
console, comfort’ (Aesch. Hum. 507). 
The word however, and its derivates 
Tapnyopia, mapyyopyya, mapnyoptKds, 
mapnyopytikes, were used especially as 
medical terms, in the sense of ‘as- 
suaging,’ ‘alleviating’; e.g. Hippocr. 
PP- 392, 393, 394, Galen xiv. p. 335, 
446, Plut. Mor. pp. 43D, 142.D; and 
perhaps owing to this usage, the idea 
of consolation, comfort, is on the whole 
predominant in the word; e.g. Plut. 
Mor. p. 56 A ras émi trois druxipact 
mapnyopias, p. 118 A Trois apatpoupevars 
tas Avmas Oia Tis yevvalas Kai cepvis 
mapnyopias, Vit. Cim. 4 én mapnyopia 
tov meévOouvs. In Plut. Mor. p. 599 B 
Zapnyopia and ovvryopia are contrast- 


ed, as the right and wrong me- 
thod of dealing with the sorrows of 
the exile; and the former is said to 
be the part of men mappyotatopéver 
kat OiOacKxovr@y OTe TO AvmEicbat Kar 
Tamewovv éavTov emt mavtl wey axpn- 
OTOV €OTL K.T.A. 

12. *Eradpas] His full name would 
be Epaphroditus, but he is always 
called by the shortened form Epa- 
phras, and must not be confused with 
the Philippian Epaphroditus (see Phi- 
lippians p. 60), who also was with St 
Paul at one period of his Roman 
captivity. Of Epaphras, as the Evan- 
gelist of Colossee, and perhaps of the 
neighbouring towns, see above, pp. 29 
8q., 34 Sq. 

0 €€ vuar] ‘who belongs to you,’ 
‘who is one of you,’ i.e. a native, or 
at least an inhabitant, of Colossz, as 
in the case of Onesimus ver. 9 ; comp. 
Acts iv. 6, xxi. 8, Rom. xvi. 10, 11, 
I Cor. xii. 16, Phil. iv. 22, ete. 

dovdAos X. 71.] This title, which the 
Apostle uses several times of himself, 
is not elsewhere conferred on any 
other individual, except once on 
Timothy (Phil. i. 1), and probably 
points to exceptional services in the 
cause of the Gospel on the part of 
Epaphras. 

ayorifopevos| ‘wrestling’; comp. 
Rom. xv. 30 ovvaywvicacbai pow ev 
Tais mpooevxais. See also the great 
ayovia of prayer in Luke xxii. 44. 
Comp. Justin Apol. ii. 13 (p. 51 B) 
kal evxomevos Kal Tappayws dyouco- 
pevos. See also i. 29, ii. 1, with the 
notes. 

arabare| ‘stand fast, doubtless the 
correct reading rather than orjre 
which the received text has; comp. 
Matt. ii. 9, xxvii. 11, where also the 
received text substitutes the weaker 
word, 


240 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[EV. 13 


4 Ld = 

Aelot Kal TET AnpIPopyMeEvot é€y wavTt GeAnmarte TOU 
~ 13 ~ \ 9 ~ J of \ / e \ 

Ceov. MapTupwW yao avTW OTL EXEL TOAUY TOVOY UTED 


tmemAnpopopnpevor| ‘fully persuad- 
ed.’ The verb rAnpodopeiv has several 
senses. (1) ‘To fulfil,accomplish’; 2 
Tim. iv. 5 rv Scaxoviay gov mAnpo- 
opycov, ib. ver. 17 TO Knpvypa mAn- 
popopnOn, Clem. Hom. xix. 24 memdn- 
popopnpevay viv On Tpiay nuepaor. 
So perhaps Hermas Sim. 2 mdnpodo- 
povow Tov mAovToy avTor... TANpopo- 
podottas Wuyas avray, though it is a 
little difficult to carry the same sense 
into the latter clause, where the word 
seems to signify rather ‘to satisfy, 
(2) ‘To persuade fully, to convince’; 
Rom. iv. 21 wAnpodopnbeis dru 6 emypy- 
yedtat Suvatos €otw kai toujoa, Xiv. 
5 ev T@ tdi vot mAnpohopeicbw, Clem. 
Rom. 42 mAnpodopnbevres Sia ths dva- 
ordcews KT... Ign. Magn. 8 eis ro 
mAnpopopnOnvat Tovs drevOovvras, ib. 11 
mem\npopopiabat €v TH yevynoet K.T.r., 
Philad. inser. év rH dvactaces adbtod 
men Anpopopnpevy ev mavTiedcer, SMYYN, 
I memAnpopopnpyevous eis tov Kupioy 
npav, Mart. Ign. 7 mrnpohopicat rovs 
dodeveis muds emi trois mpoyeyovdou, 
Clem. Hom. Ep. ad Lac. 10 rexAnpodo- 
pnpévos ott ex Ceod Sixaiov, ib, xvii. 
13, 14, XIX. 24 cuvetiOéunv ws mAnpo- 
opovpevos. So too Luxx Heeles. viii. 11 
exAnpoopydn Kapdia tov momoa Td 
movnpov. (3) ‘To fill’; Rom. xv. 13 mAn- 
popopnoat buas maons yapas (a doubtful 
v.1.), Clem. Rom. 54 ris rexAnpogopnpe- 
vos ayanns; Test. xii Patr. Dan 2 79 
meoveia emrAnpopopyOny rhs avaipéeoews 
avrov, where it means ‘I was filled 
with, i.e, ‘I was fully bent on? a 
sense closely allied tothe last. From 
this account it will be seen that there 
is in the usage of the word no 
justification for translating it ‘most 
surely believed’ in Luke i. 1 rép 
memnpohopypévey év ruiv mpaypator, 
and it should therefore be rendered 
‘fulfilled, accomplished.’ The word 
is almost exclusively biblical and ec- 
clesiastical ; and it seems clear that 
the passage from Ctesias in Photius 


(Bibl. 72) woddois Adyous Kat Spkots 
mAnoopopnaavtes MeyaSutov is not 
quoted with verbal exactness. In 
Isocr. Zrapez. § 8 the word is now 
expunged from the text on the autho- 
rity of the mss. For the substantive 
mAnpopopia see the note on ii. 2 above. 
The reading of the received text here, 
TeTAnpwpevor, must be rejected as of 
inferior authority. 

ev mavtt x.tA.| Sin every thing 
willed by God’; comp. 1 Kings ix. 11. 
So the plural ra OeAnpara in Acts 
Xill. 22, Ephes. ii. 3, and several times 
in the txx. The words are best con- 
nected directly with remAnpodopnpevor. 
The passages quoted in the last note 
amply illustrate this construction. The 
preposition may denote (1) The abode 
of the conviction, as Rom. xiv. 5 évr@ 
iSi@ vot; or (2) The object of the 
conviction, as Ign. MZagn. 11 &v tH 
yevrnoet, Philad. inser. ev tH avacta- 
get; or (3) The atmosphere, the 
surroundings, of the conviction, as 
Philad. inser. év mavri édée. This 
last seems to be its sense here. The 
connexion otaéjre...¢v, though legiti- 
mate in itself (Rom. v. 2, 1 Cor. xv. 
1), is not favoured by the order of 
the words here. 

13. modvy rovor] ‘much totl, both 
inward and outward, though from the 
connexion the former notion seems to 
predominate, as in ayéva ii. I ; comp. 
Plat. Phaedr. p. 247 B wovos re kat 


ayo €axatos ux mpoxerrar. OF the 
two variations which transcribers 


have substituted for the correct read- 
ing ¢jAov emphasizes the former idea 
and xorov the latter. The true read- 
ing is more expressive than either. 
The word zovos however is very 
rare in the New Testament (occur- 
ring only Rev... Xvi. 10, 31, XXi. 4, 
besides this passage), and was there- 
fore liable to be changed. 

kat tov «7.A.] The neighbouring 
cities are taken in their geographical 


IV. 14] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


241 


wn ~ / \ ~ / 
UM@V Kal TwY é€v Aaooikia Kal Twy €v ‘TepamroAet. 

. Ce ca Chg \ ¢ ? , 4 
“armaCeTat uuas Aoukas o laTpos 0 ayamnTos, Kat 


Anpas. 


order, commencing from Colossze; see 
above, p. 2. Epaphras, though a Co- 
lossian, may have been the evangelist 
of the two larger cities also. 

Aaodixia] This formhas not the same 
overwhelming preponderance of au- 
thority in its favour here and in vy. 
15, 16, as in ii. 1, but is probably cor- 
rect in all these places. It is quite 
possible however, that the same per- 
son would write Aaodixia and Aaodikeca 
indifferently. Even the form Aao- 
dcxya is found in Mionnet, Suppl. vu. 
p. 581. Another variation is the con- 
traction of Aaod- into Aad-; e.g. Aa- 
dexnvos, Which occurs frequently in the 
edict of Diocletian. 

14. Aovxas] St Luke had travelled 
with St Paul on his last journey to 
Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 1 sq.). He 
had also accompanied him two 
years later from Jerusalem to Rome 
(Acts xxvii. 2 sq.). And now again, 
probably after another interval of two 
years (see Philippians p. 31 sq.), we 
find him in the Apostle’s company. 
It is not probable that he remained 
with St Paul in the meanwhile (P/ii- 
ippians, p. 35), and this will account 
for his name not occurring in the 
Kpistle to the Philippians. He was 
at the Apostle’s side again in his 
second captivity (2 Tim. iv. 11). 

Lucas is doubtless a contraction 
of Lucanus. Several Old Latin mss 
write out the name Zucanus in the 
superscription and subscription to the 
Gospel, just as elsewhere Apollos is 
written in full Apollonius. On the 
frequent occurrence of this name Lu- 
canus in inscriptions see Ephem. 
Epigr. 11. p. 28 (1874). The shortened 
form Lucas however seems to be 
rare. He is here distinguished from 
of dvtes ek mepiropas (ver. 11). This 
alone is fatal to his identification 
(mentioned as a tradition by Origen 


COL. 


ad loc.) with the Lucius, St Paul’s 
‘kinsman’ (i.e. a Jew; see Philip- 
pians pp. 17, 171, 173), who sends 
a salutation from Corinth to Rome 
(Rom. xvi. 21). It is equally fatal to 
the somewhat later tradition that he 
was one of the seventy (Dial. c. Mare. 
§ 1 in Orig. Op. 1. p. 806, ed. De la 
Rue; Epiphan. Haer. li. 11). The iden- 
tification with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts 
xiii. 13) is possible but not probable. 
Though the example of Patrobius for 
Patrobas (Rom. xvi. 14) showsthatsuch 
a contraction is not out of the ques- 
tion, yet probability and testimony 
alike point to Lucanus, as the longer 
form of the Evangelist’s name. 

0 iatpds] Indications of medical 
knowledge have been traced both in 
the third Gospel and in the Acts; see 
on this point Smith’s Voyage and 
Shipwreck of St Paul p.6 sq. (ed. 2). 
It has been observed also, that St 
Luke’s first appearance in company 
with St Paul (Acts xvi. 10) nearly syn- 
chronizes with an attack of the Apo- 
stle’s constitutional malady (Gal. iv. 
13, 14); so that he may have joined 
him partly in a professional capacity. 
This conjecture is perhaps borne out 
by the personal feeling which breathes 
in the following o dyamnros. But 
whatever may be thought of these 
points, there is no ground for ques- 
tioning the ancient belief (Iren. iii. 14. 
I sq.) that the physician is also the 
Evangelist. St Paul’s motive in spe- 
cifying him as the Physician may not 
have been to distinguish him from any 
other bearing the same name, but to 
emphasize his own obligations to his 
medical knowledge. The name in this 
form does not appear to have been 
common. The tradition that St Luke 
was a painter is quite late (Niceph. 
Call. ii. 43). It is worthy of notice 
that the two Evangelists are men- 


16 


242 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


[IV. 1s, 16 


, A a Ae? > N 
’Agmacacbe tous év Aaodikia ddehpous kal Nup- 
nw \ A > ~ > € 
pay Kat THY Kav’ oikov avTwyv exkAnoiay, “Kai dray 


tioned together in this context, as also 
in Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11. 

6 dyannros] ‘ the beloved one, not to 
be closely connected with o iarpos, for 
6 dyarnros is complete in itself ; comp. 
Philem. 1, Rom. xvi. 12 (comp. VV. 5, 
8, 9), 3 Joh.1. For the form compare 
the expression in the Gospels, Matt. 
iii. 17, etc. 0 vids pov, o dyamnros k.T.A. ; 
where a comparison of Is. xlii. 1, as 
quoted in Matt. xii. 18, seems to show 
that 6 dyamnros «.7.d. forms a distinct 
clause from 6 vids pov. 

Anpas] On the probability that this 
person was a Thessalonian (2 Tim. iv. 
10) and that his name was Demetrius, 
see the introduction to the Epistles to 
the Thessalonians. He appears in 
close connexion with St Lukein Philem. 
24, as here. In 2 Tim. iv. 10 their 
conduct is placed in direct contrast, 
Anuas pe éyxarédurev...AodKas éotiv po- 
vos per’ €uov. There is perhaps a fore- 
shadowing of this contrast in the lan- 
guage here. While Luke is described 
with special tenderness as 0 farpos, o 
dyarnros, Demas alone is dismissed 
with a bare mention and without any 
epithet of commendation. 

1s—17. ‘Greet from me the bre- 
thren who are in Laodicea, especially 
Nymphas, and the church which as- 
sembles in their house. And when 
this letter has been read among you, 
take care that it is read also in the 
Church of the Laodiceans, and be sure 
that ye also read the letter which I 
have sent to Laodicea, and which ye 
will get from them. Moreover give 
this message from me to Archippus ; 
Take heed to the ministry which thou 
hast received from me in Christ, and 
discharge it fully and faithfully.’ 

15. Nupdav] As the context shows, 
an inhabitant of Laodicea. The name 
in full would probably be Nymphodo- 
rus, as Artemas (Tit. iii. 12) for Arte- 
midorus, Zenas (Tit. iii. 13) for Zeno- 


dorus, Theudas (Acts v. 16) for The- 
odorus, Olympas (Rom. xvi. 15) for 
Olympiodorus, and probably Hermas 
(Rom. xvi. 14) for Hermodorus (see 
Philippians, p. 174). Other names in 
as occurring in the New Testament 
and representing different termina- 
tions are Amplias (Ampliatus, a v. /.), 
Antipas (Antipater), Demas (Deme- 
trius ?), Epaphras (Epaphroditus), Lu- 
cas (Lucanus), Parmenas (Parme- 
nides), Patrobas (Patrobius), Silas 
(Sylvanus), Stephanas (Stephanepho- 
rus), and perhaps Junias (Junianus, 
Rom. xvi. 7). For a collection of 
names with this contraction, found in 
different places, see Chandler Greek 
Accentuation § 34; comp. Lobeck Pa- 
thol. p. 505 sq. Some remarkable 
instances are found in the inscrip- 
tions; e.g.’AcK\ds, Anwoobas, Atopas, 
‘Eppoyas, Nixopas, "Ovnoas, Tpodas, 
etc.; see esp. Boeckh C. J, 111. pp. 1072, 
1097. The name Nymphodorus is 
found not unfrequently ; e.g. Herod. 
vii. 137, Thue. ii. 29, Athen. i. p. 19 F, 
vi. p. 265 c, Mionnet Suppl. vi. p. 88, 
Boeckh C.Z. no. 158, ete. The con- 
tracted form Nupdas however is very 
rare, though it occurs in an Athenian 
inscription, Boeckh C. I. 269 Nuvdas, 
and apparently also in a Spartan, 
ib. 1240 Evruyos Nuva. In Murat. 
MDXXXxv. 6, is an inscription to one Vw. 
Aquilius Nymphas, a freedman, where 
the dative is Nymphadi. Other 
names from which Nymphas might 
be contracted are Nymphius, Nymphi- 
cus, Nymphidius, Nymphodotus, the 
first and last being the most common. 

Those, who read ars in the fol- 
lowing clause, take it as a woman’s 
name (Nupdar, not Nuzday); and the 
name Nymphe, Nympha, Nympa, etc., 
occurs from time to time in Latin 
inscriptions; e.g. C. J. ZL. 1. 1099, 
1783, 3763, III. 525, V. 607, etc. Mura- 
tor. CMXXIV. I, MOLIX. 8, MCOXCV. 9, 


IV. 16] 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


243 


> “ > ea e r) / / e/ A 
dvayvwcIn map viv nH éemioToAn, TomjoaTe iva Kal 
! 3 


MDXxcI. 3. But a Doric form of the 
Greek name here seems in the highest 
degree improbable. 

Tv Kat oikov x.r.A.] The same ex- 
pression is used of Prisca and Aquila 
both at Rome (Rom. xvi. 5) and at 
Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19), and also of 
Philemon, whether at Colossze or at 
Laodicea is somewhat uncertain (Phi- 
lem. 2); comp. Acts xii. 12 rv oixiay Tis 
Mapias...o0 joav ixavot cuvnOporopevor 
kal mpooevxopuevor, and see Philippi- 
ans p. 56. Perhaps similar gather- 
ings may be implied by the expres- 
sions in Rom. xvi. 14, 15 rovs ody av- 
Tois adeAgovs, Tovs avy avTois TavTas 
ayiovs (Probst Kirchliche Disciplin 
p. 182, 1873). See also Act. Mart. 
Justin. § 3 (IL p. 262 ed. Otto), Clem. 
Recogn. x. 71 ‘Theophilus... domus 
suae ingentem basilicam ecclesiae no- 
mine consecraret’ (where the word 
‘basilica’ was probably introduced 
by the translator Ruffinus). Of the 
same kind must have been the ‘ colle- 
gium quod est in domo Sergiae Pau- 
linae’ (de Rossi Roma Sotterranea i. 
p. 209); for the Christians were first 
recognised by the Roman Government 
as ‘collegia’ or burial clubs, and pro- 
tected by this recognition doubtless 
held their meetings for religious wor- 
ship. ' There is no clear example of a 
separate building set apart for Chris- 
tian worship within the limits of the 
Roman empire before the third cen- 
tury, though apartments in private 
houses might be specially devoted to 
this purpose.‘ This, I think, appears 
as a negative result from the passages 
collected in Bingham viii. 1. 13 and 
Probst p. 181 sq. with a different view. 
Hence the places of Christian assem- 
bly were not commonly called vaoi till 
quite late (Ignat. Magn. 7 is not 
really an exception), but ofko: Gcov, 
oikot €xkAnolay, oikot evatypro, and the 
like (Kuseb. H. £. vii. 30, viii. 13, 
ix. 9, etc.). 

attav| The difficulty of this read- 


ing has led to the two corrections, av- 
rov and avrns, of which the former 
appears in the received text, and the 
latter is supported by one or two very 
ancient authorities. Of these alter- 
native readings however, avroi is con- 
demned by its simplicity, and avris 
has arisen from the form Nuyday, 
which prima facie would look like a 
woman’s name, and yet hardly can be 
so. We should require to know more 
of the circumstances to feel any con- 
fidence in explaining avrayv. A sim- 
ple explanation is that adrév denotes 
‘ Nymphas and his friends,’ by a trans- 
ition which is common in classical 
writers; e.g. Xen. Anab. iii. 3. 7 mpoo- 
net pey (McOpidarns)...mpos Tovs "EAAn- 
vas’ eret & éyyds éyévovto xt.A., iv. 
5. 33 émet O nAOov mpos Xeupicodor, 
kaTreAapBavoy Kal é€xeivous oKnvour- 
ras: see also Kithner Gramm. § 371 
(11. p. 77), Bernhardy Syntaz p. 288. 
Or perhaps rods év Aaodixia ddegovs 
may refer not to the whole body of the 
Laodicean Church, but to a family of 
Colossian Christians established in 
Laodicea. Under any circumstances 
this éxcAnoia is only a section of 7 
Aaodixéwv exkAnoia mentioned in ver. 
16. On the authorities for the vari- 
ous readings see the detached note. 

16. 7 émuarodn) ‘the letter,’ which 
has’ just been concluded, for these 
salutations have the character of a 
postscript; comp. Rom. xvi. 22 Tép- 
Tios 6 ypavvas THY emioroAny, 2 Thess. 
iii. 14 d1a THs emiotoAyns, Mart. Polyc. 
20 thy éemictoAny Staréuacbe. Such 
examples however do not countenance 
the explanation which refers éypayva 
vp ev tH éemoToAn in I Cor. v. 9g to 
the First Epistle itself, occurring (as 
it does) in the middle of the letter 
(comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8). 

momoare wa] ‘cause that’; so John 
xi. 37, Apoc. xiii. 15. In such cases 
the iva is passing away from its earlier 
sense of design to its later sense 
of result, A corresponding classical 


16—2 


244 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


{IV.-17 


om , , ~ 
év ti Aaodixéwy éxkAyoia dvayvwobn, Kal TH €K 


, / \ e ~ ~ 
Aaodikias iva Kal Upeis avayvwre. 


Kal el7ate "Ap- 


, , \ , my / 3 i 
xinmw, Bree Tyv diakoviay nv mapéAaBes ev Kupiw, 


/ > \ ~~ 
iva avTnv WANpols. 


expression is moveiy ws Or Sas, e.g. 
Xen. Cyr. vi. 3. 18. 

A similar charge is given in 1 Thess. 
v.27. The precaution here is proba- 
bly suggested by the distastefulness 
of the Apostle’s warnings, which might 
lead to the suppression of the letter. 

thv ék Aaodikias] i.e. ‘the letter left 
at Laodicea, which you will procure 
thence” For this abridged expres- 
sion compare Luke xi. 13 6 mar7jp 6 
€& odpavoy Saver mvetpa Gytov, Xvi. 26 
(v. 1) pndé of exetOev mpos yas 
dtarepdov, Susann. 26 ws d€ qKoveav 
Thy Kpavyyy év T@ mapadeiow of Ex THs 
oixias, eicennonoay x.7.A. For instances 
of this proleptic use of the preposi- 
tion in classical writers, where it is ex- 
tremely common, see Kiihner Giz. $448 
(1. p. 474), Jelf Gr. § 647, Matthize 
Gr. § 596: e.g. Plat. Apol. 32 B tovs 
ovK dvedopevous Tovs ek THs vavpaxias, 
Xen. Cyr. vii. 2. 5 dpmaccpevor ta €k 
ray oixiay, Isocr. Paneg. § 187 ryv 
evdarpoviay tiv éx THs ’Acias eis THY 
Evpamrnv Siaxopicapev. There are 
good reasons for the belief that St 
Paul here alludes to the so-called 
Epistle to the Ephesians, which’ was 
in fact a circular letter addressed to 
the principal churches of proconsular 
Asia (see above, p. 37, and the intro- 
duction to the Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians). Tychicus was obliged to pass 
through Laodicea on his way to Co- 
lossze, and would leave a copy there, 
before the Colossian letter was deli- 
vered. For other opinions respecting 
this ‘letter from Laodicea’ see the 
detached note. 

iva kal vpeis k.7.d.] ‘see that ye also 
read. At first sight it might seem as 
though this iva also were governed by 
moincare, like the former; but, inas- 
much as roujoare Would be somewhat 


awkward in this connexion, itis perhaps 
better to treat the second clause as 
independent and elliptical, (@Xéere) 
iva w7.A. This is suggested also by 
the position of tyv éx Aaodixias be- 
fore iva; comp. Gal. ii. 10 povoy trav 
mTaXav iva pynpovedopey (with the 
note). LEllipses before iva are fre- 
quent; e.g. John ix. 3, 2 Cor. viii. 13, 
2 Thess. iii. 9, 1 Joh. ii. 19. 

17. Kat etrare] Why does not the 
Apostle address himself directly te 
Archippus? It might be answered that 
he probably thought the warning 
would come with greater emphasis, 
when delivered by the voice of the 
Church. Or the simpler explanation 
perhaps is, that Archippus was not 
resident at Colossze but at Laodicea: 
see the introduction to the Epistle 
to Philemon. On this warning itself 
see above, p. 42. 

Biére] ‘Look to, as 2 Joh. 8 Bdeérere 
€avtovs iva py kt.A. More commonly 
it has the accusative of the thing to 
be avoided; see Phil. iii. 2 (with the 
note). 

tiv Staxoviav] From the stress which 
is laid upon it, the dcaxovia here would 
seem to refer, as in the case of Timo- 
thy cited below, to some higher func- 
tion than the diaconate properly so 
called. In Acts xii. 25 the same 
phrase, mAnpody tiv Scaxoviay, is used 
of a temporary ministration, the col- 
lection and conveyance of the alms for 
the poor of Jerusalem (Acts xi. 29); 
but the solemnity of the warning here 
points to a continuous office, rather 
than an immediate service. 

mapédaBes| Le. probably map’ éepod. 
The word suggests, though it does not 
necessarily imply, a mediate rather 
than a direct reception: see the note 
Gal. i. 12, Archippus received the 


IV. 18} 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


245 


OQ daomacyos TH Eun xetpt TlavAov. Mvnuoveveré 


fou TwWV OETUWY. 


charge immediately from St Paul, 
though ultimately from Christ. ‘Non 
enim sequitur,’ writes Bengel, ‘a 
Domino (1 Cor. xi. 23), sed im Domi- 
no.’ 
mAnpois| ‘fulfil? i.e. ‘discharge 
Sully’; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 5 rv dtaxo- 
viay cov tAnpodopyaop. 

18. ‘I add this salutation with my 
own hand, signing it with my name 
Paul. Be mindful of my bonds. 
God’s grace be with you.’ 

‘O donacpos x.t.d.] The letter was 
evidently written by an amanuensis 
(comp. Rom. xvi. 22). The final salu- 
tation alone, with the accompanying 
sentence pynuovevere x.T.A., Was in the 
Apostle’s own handwriting. This 
seems to have been the Apostle’s 
general practice, even where he does 
not call attention to his own signature. 
In 2 Thess. iii. 17 sq., 1 Cor. xvi. 21, 
as here, he directs his readers’ notice 
to the fact, but in other epistles he 
is silent. In some cases however he 
writes much more than the final sen- 
tence. Thus the whole letter to 
Philemon is apparently in his own 
handwriting (see ver. 19), and in the 
Epistle to the Galatians he writes a 
long paragraph at the close (see the 
note on Vi. II). 

T™ evn xetpt TavAov] The same 
phrase occurs in 2 Thess. iii. 17,1 Cor. 
xvi 21. For the construction comp. 
e.g. Philo Leg.ad Gai. 8 (m1. p. 554) 
€uov €oTt TOU Maxpavos épyov Taios, 
ive see Kiihner § 406 (11. p. 242), Jelf 

467. 

tov Secpav] His bonds establish 
an additional claim to hearing. He 
who is suffering for Christ has a right 
to speak on behalf of Christ. The 


‘H yapus med” vuwy, 


appeal is similar in Ephes. iii. 1 rovrov 
xapwv éyd Tlatdos 6 Séopuos rod X.’L, 
which is resumed again (after a long 
digression) in iv. I mapaxaA@ ody bpas 
eyo 6 Séopuos ev Kupio déiws mept- 
mTatjoat K.7.A. (comp. Vi. 20 vmep ov 
mpecBeva év ddrvoet). So too Philem. 
Q Towvros @y ws Tlatdos ... déopios 
Xpicrov “Incov. These passages seem 
to show that the appeal here is not for 
himself, but for his teaching—not for 
sympathy with his sufferings but for 
obedience to the Gospel. His bonds 
were not his own; they were ra decua 
Tov evayyediov (Philem. 13). In Heb. 
x. 34 the right reading is not rois dec 
pots pov, but trois Seopiois ouvera- 
Onoare (comp. xiii. 3). Somewhat simi- 
lar is the appeal to his oriypara in 
Gal. vi. 17, ‘Henceforth Iet no man 
trouble me.’ See the notes on Philem. 
10, 13. 

‘H yapts «.7.A.] This very short form 
of the final benediction appears only 
here and in 1 Tim. vi. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 22. 
In Tit. iii. 15 wdyrwy is inserted, and 
so in Heb. xiii. 25. In Ephes. vi. 24 
the form so far agrees with the ex- 
amples quoted, that 7 ydpis is used 
absolutely, though the end is length- 
ened out. In all the earlier epistles 7 
xaprs is defined by the addition of rod 
Kupiov [npav}’Incot[Xpiorod |; 1 Thess. 
v. 28, 2 Thess. iii. 18, 1 Cor. xvi. 23, 
2 Cor. xiii. 13, Gal. vi. 18, Rom. xvi. 
20, [24], Phil. iv. 23. Thus the abso- 
lute 7 xapis in the final benediction 
may be taken as a chronological note, 
A similar phenomenon has been al- 
ready observed (r7 éxxAnoig, rais ék- 
kAnaias) in the opening addresses: 
see the note oni. 2. 


246 


Harmon- 
istic read- 
ings. 


Prepon- 
derant 
evidence 
(1) for the 
correct 
reading; 


(2) against 
the correct 
reading. 


Examples, 


lil. 6, 
words in- 
serted. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


On some Various Readings in the Epistle’. 


In one respect the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians hold a unique 
position among the Epistles of St Paul, as regards textual criticism. They 
alone have been exposed, or exposed in any considerable degree, to those 
harmonizing tendencies in transcribers, which have had so great an influence 
on the text of the Synoptic Gospels. 

In such cases there is sometimes no difficulty in ascertaining the correct 
reading. The harmonistic change is condemned by the majority of the 
oldest and best authorities; or there is at least a nearly even balance of 
external testimony, and the suspicious character of the reading is quite 
sufficient to turn the scale. Thus we cannot hesitate for a moment about 
such readings as i. 14 61a Tod aiparos avrod (from Ephes. i. 7), or iii. 16 yad- 
pois kal vpvors Kal @duis mvevparikais, and r@ Kvpie (for r@ Ged) in the 
same verse (both from Ephes. v. 19). 

In other instances again there can hardly be any doubt about the text, 
even though the vast preponderance of authority is in favour of the harmo- 
nistic reading; and these are especially valuable because they enable us 
to test the worth of our authorities. Such examples are: 

iii. 6. The omission of the words émi rods viods tis ameibeias (taken 
from Ephes. v. 6). Apparently the only extant ms in favour of the omission 
is B. In D however they are written (though by the first hand) in smaller 
letters and extend beyond the line (in both Greek and Latin), whence 
we may infer that they were not found in a copy which was before the tran- 
scriber. They are wanting also in the Thebaic Version and in one form of the 
Ethiopic (Polyglott). They were also absent from copies used by Cle- 
ment of Alexandria (Paed. iii, 11, p. 295, where however they are inserted 
in the printed texts ; Strom. iii. 5, p. 531), by Cyprian (Zpist. lv. 27, p. 645 


1 The references to the patristic quo- 
tations in the following pages have all 
been verified. I have also consulted 
the Egyptian and Syriac Versions in 
every case, and the Armenian and 
Latin in some instances, before giving 
the readings. As regards the mss, I 
have contented myself with the colla- 
tions as given in Tregelles and Tisch- 
endorf, not verifying them unless I 
had reason to suspect an error. 

The readings of the Memphitic Ver- 
gion are very incorrectly given even by 
the principal editors, such as Tregelies 
and Tischendorf; the translation of 


Wilkins being commonly adopted, 
though full of errors, and no attention 
being paid to the various readings of 
Boetticher’s text. Besides the errors 
corrected in the following pages, I 
have also observed these places where 
the text of this version is incor- 
rectly reported; ii, 7 é avrg not 
omitted; ii. 13 the second vuas not 
omitted; ii. 17 the singular (8), not the 
plural (d); iii. 4 vudy, not yar; iil. 
16 T@ Oeg, not rH Kuplw; iii. 22 rov 
Kipiov, not rdv Oeov; iv. 3 doubtful 
whether 8’ 8 or 5¢ 8y; and probably 
there are others. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 247 


ed. Hartel), by an unknown writer (de Sing. Cler. 39, in Cypr. Op. III. p. 215), 
by the Ambrosian Hilary (ad loc.), and by Jerome (Hpist. xiv. 5, I. p. 32) 
though now found apparently in all the Latin mss. 

iii. 21. épei¢ere is only found in B K and in later hands of D (with its iii. 21 
transcript E) among the uncial mss. All the other uncials read mapopyi¢ere, €pedisere. 
which is taken from Ephes. vi. 4. In this case however the reading of B is 
supported by the greater number of cursives, and it accordingly has a place 
in the received text. The versions (so far as we can safely infer their read- 
ings) go almost entirely with the majority of uncials. The true readings of Syriac 
the Syriac versions are just the reverse of those assigned to them even by Version 
the chief critical editors, Tregelles and Tischendorf. Thus in the Peshito, as 


sented. 
the word used is the Aphel of 1X4, thesame mood of the same verb being 


employed to translate mapopyifew, not only in Rom. x. 19, but even in 
the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 4. The word in the text of the Harclean 


is the same OWA Td, but in the margin the alternative EG NS 
is given. White interprets this as saying that the text is épeOi¢ere and the 
margin tapopyifere, and he is followed by Tregelles and Tischendorf. But 
in this version, as in the Peshito, the former word translates mapopyi¢ew in 
Rom. x. 19, Ephes. vi. 4; while in the Peshito the latter word is adopted 
to render épedifew in 2 Cor. ix. 2 (the only other passage in the N. T. 
where épeOifew occurs). In the Harclean of 2 Cor. ix, 2 a different word 


from either, dissdvss, is used. It seems tolerably clear therefore that 
mapopyi¢ere was read in the text of both Peshito and Harclean here, while 
epeOifere was given in the margin of the latter. The Latin versions seem Latin 
also to have read mapopyifere ; for the Old Latin has ad iram (or in tram Versions. 
or ad iracundiam) provocare, and the Vulgate ad indignationem provo- 

care here, while both have ad tracundiam provocare in Ephes. vi. 4. 

The Memphitic too has the same rendering foswmt in both passages. Of 

the earlier Greek fathers Clement, Strom. iv. 8 (p. 593), reads é€peOitere : 

and it is found in Chrysostom and some later writers. 

These examples show how singularly free B is from this passion for Great 
harmonizing, and may even embolden us to place reliance on its authority value of B, 
in extreme cases. 

For instance, the parallel passages Ephes. v. 19 and Col. iii. 16 stand Parallel 


thus in the received text : passages. 
EPHESIANS. CoLOssIANs. Col. iii. 16, 
Aadovvres EavTois Warpois Kal vp- SiSdoxovres kat vovberodvres éav- Eph. v. 19. 


vos Kal @dais mvevpatixais ddovres | rovs wadpois Kal vuvors Kal @dais 
kat Waddovres ev tH Kapdia vay | mvevpatixais év xdpitt ASovres ev TH 
T& Kupio. kapoia vuav TH Kupio. 

And A carries the harmonizing tendency still further by inserting év 
xapire before gdovres in Ephes. from the parallel passage. 


In B they are read as follows: 


“ c - - a“ ¢ 
Aadovvres Eavrois év Warpois kal didacxovres Kal vovbetouvres eav- 
4 ‘\ Nv - wv "A 
Vuvors kat @dais adovres kat yad-| rovs Warpois Tuvos @dais mvevpa- 
- , ea - e od a - 
Aovres TH Kapdia tuav ro Kupig. Tikais év TH xapitt adovres ev Tais 


’ € ~ - “ 
' Kapdlas vpaov TO Cea. 


248 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Altera- § Here are seven divergences from the received text. ( 1) The insertion of ev 

aes co z before Yarzois in Ephes.; (2) The omission of kai, cai, attaching wWadyois, 

harmon. vols, @dais in Col. ; (3) The omission of mvevpariKais in Ephes. ; ; (4) The 

izing. insertion of 7m before xapire in Col.; (5) The omission of ev before 77 xap- 
Sia in Hphes.; (6) The substitution of rats xapSias for 77 xapdia in Col.: 
(7) The substitution of r@ Oca for rd Kupio in Col. 

Of these seven divergences the fourth alone does not affect the question: 
of the remaining six, the readings of B in (2), (6), (7) are supported by the 
great preponderance of the best authorities, and are unquestionably right. 
In (1), (3), (5) however the case stands thus: 

év paruois. (1) ev yadpois B, P, with the cursives 17, 67**, 73, 116, 118, and the 
Latin, d, e, vulg., with the Latin commentators Victorinus, Hilary, 
and Jerome. Of these however it is clear that the Latin autho- 
rities can have little weight in such a case, as the preposition 
might have been introduced by the translator. All the other 
Greek ss with several Greek fathers omit év. 


TVEU[LGTL- (3) mvevparexais omitted in B, d,e. Of the Ambrosian Hilary Tischen- 
Rats. dorf says ‘fluct. lectio’; but his comment ‘In quo enim est 


spiritus, semper spiritualia meditatur’ seems certainly to recog- 
nise the word. It appears to be found in every other authority. 
TH kapélg. (5) 17 xapdia 8* B with Origen in Cramer’s Catena, p. 201. 

év rj kapdia K L, and the vast majority of later mss, the Armenian 
and Ethiopic Versions, Euthalius (Tischendorf’s ms), Theodoret, 
and others. The Harclean Syriac (text) is quoted by Tischen- 
dorf and Tregelles in favour of év 77 xapdia, but it is im- 
possible to say whether the translator had or had not the pre- 
position. 

év rais kapdias ¥°A D F GP, 47, 8° ; the Old Latin, Vulgate, Mem- 
phitic, Peshito Syriac, and Gothic Versions, together with the 
margin of the Harclean Syriac ; the fathers Basil (11. p. 464), 
Victorinus (probably), Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Ambrosian 
Hilary, Jerome, and others. Chrysostom (as read in the existing 
texts) wavers between év rj xapdia and év ais xapdias. This 
form of the reading is an attempt to bring Ephes. into harmony 
with Col., just as (6) is an attempt to bring Col. into harmony 
with Ephes, 

It will be seen how slenderly B is supported; and yet we can hardly 
resist the impression that it has the right reading in all three cases. In the 
omission of mvevuarikais more especially, where the support is weakest, this 

impression must, I think, be very strong. 
Excellence This highly favour able estimate of B is our starting-point ; and on the 
of B else- whole it will be enhanced as we proceed. Thus for instance in i. 22 andii. 2 
where. —_ we shall find this ms alone (with one important Latin father) retaining the 
correct text; in the latter case amidst a great complication of various read- 
ings. And when again, as in iv. 8, we find B for once on the side of a reading 
which might otherwise be suspected as a harmonistic change, this support 
alone will weigh heavily in its favour. Other cases in which B (with more 
or less support) preserves the correct reading against the mass of authorities 
are il. 2 nav mdodros, ii. 7 1H mire, ii, 13 Tos mapamTepacw (omitting éy, 


a 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 249 


v. 12 oradjre, together with several instances which will appear in the 
course of the following investigation. On the other hand its value must 

not be overestimated. Thus in iv. 3 ro pvoryptoy tov Xprorov de 6 Kai 
déS5enat! there can be little doubt that the great majority of ancient autho- False 
rities correctly read 6¢ 6, though B F G have 5? dv: but the variation is renee 
easily explained. A single stroke, whether accidental or deliberate, alone Bris 
would be necessary to turn the neuter into a masculine and make the 
relative agree with the substantive nearest to it in position. Again in 

ii. 10 és éorw 1 Kedady, the reading of B which substitutes 6 for és is 
plainly wrong, though supported in this instance by D F G 47%, by the Latin 

text d, and by Hilary in one passage (de Trin. ix. 8, I. p. 263), though else- 
where (ib. i. 13, I. p. 10) he reads 6. But here again we have only an in- 
stance of a very common interchange. Whether for grammatical reasons or 
from diplomatic confusion or from some other cause, five other instances of 

this interchange occur in this short epistle alone; i. 15 6 for ds FG; i. 186 

for és F G; i. 24 és for 6 C D* etc; i.27 6s ford 8 C D K Letc,; iii. 14 ds 
foré68* D. Such readings again as the omission of kal airovpevor i. 9 by 

B K, or of d¢ adrod ini. 20 by B D* F G etc, or of 7 émorody in iv. 16 by 

B alone, need not be considered, since the motive for the omission is 
obvious, and the authority of B will not carry as great weight as it would 

in other cases. Similarly the insertion of 4 in i. 18, 7 dpxn, by B, 47, 67**, 

b*, and of xai in ii. 15, cat éSevyparicev, by B alone, do not appear to deserve 
consideration, because in both instances these readings would suggest 
themselves as obvious improvements. In other cases, as in the omission of 

tis before yijs (i. 20), and of évi in év évt o@part (iil. 15), the scribe of B has 
erred as any scribe might err. 


The various readings in this epistle are more perplexing than perhaps 
in any portion of St Paul’s Epistles of the same length. The following de- 
serve special consideration. 


i. 3 TH OE@ Tarp. 

On this very unusual collocation I have already remarked in the notes j, 3 7g 

(p. 133). The authorities stand as follows: beg warpl, 
(1) ré Oe@ wrarpi B O*. 
(2) tr Oe@ ro warpi D* F G Chrysostom. 

One or other is also the reading of the Old Latin (d, e, g, harl.**), of the 
Memphitic, the two Syriac (Peshito and Harclean), the Ethiopic, and the 
Arabic (Erpenius, Bedwell, Leipzig) Versions; and of Augustine (de Unit. 

Eccl. 45, 1x. p. 368) and Cassiodorus (11. p. 1351, Migne). 

(3) 7 Oe kat rarpi § A C? D°K L P and apparently all the other 
mss; the Vulgate and Armenian Versions; Euthalius (Tischendorf’s ms), 
Theodore of Mopsuestia (transl), Theodoret, the Ambrosian Hilary, and 
others. 

A comparison of these authorities seems to show pretty clearly that 
7@ Oe marpi was the original reading. The other two were expedients 


1 In this passage B (with some few expression (ii. 2, 1 Cor. iv. 1, Rev. x. 
other authorities) has roi Geod for roo 7; comp. 1 Cor. il. 1, v. 1.) for a less 
Xpicrod, thus substituting commoner common (Ephes. iil. 4). 


250 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


for getting rid of a very unusual collocation of words. The scribes have 

compared felt the same difficulty again in iii. 17 evxapiorotvres TH OeG marpi Ov 

withiii.17, avrod, and there again we find xai inserted before warpi. In this latter 
instance however the great preponderance of ancient authority is in 
favour of the unusual form 76 66 warpi. 

and i. 12. It is worth observing also that in i. 12, where r@ warpi has the highest 
support, there is sufficient authority for r@ eG marpi to create a suspicion 
that there too it may be possibly the correct reading. Thus 76 6e6 rarpi 
is read in 8 37, while 6e6 76 marpi stands in F G. One or other must have 
been the reading of some Old Latin and Vulgate texts (f, g, m, fuld.), of the 
Peshito Syriac, of the Memphitic (in some texts, for others read r6 marpi 
simply), of the Arabic (Bedwell), of the Armenian (Uscan), and of Origen 
(11. p. 451, the Latin translator); while several other authorities, Greek 
and Latin, read r@ Oe xat rarpi. 

Unique There is no other instance of this collocation of words, 6 Oeds marnp, 

colloca- in the Greek Testament, so far as I remember; and it must be regarded 

ner as peculiar to this epistle. 


i. 4 THN drdTtHN [HN €yeTe]. 


iL 4. Here the various readings are ; 
Thy dydany (1) thy dydrny B. 
Lyn exerel- (2) rhv dyarnv nv exere ANC D* F G P 17, 37, 47; the Old 


Latin and Vulgate, Memphitic (apparently), and Harclean 
Syriac Versions; the Ambrosian Hilary, Theodore of 
Mopsuestia (transl.), and others. 

(3) rhv ayamnv tv. D° K L; the Peshito Syriac (apparently) 
and Armenian (apparently) Versions; Chrysostom, Theo- 
doret and others. 

If the question were to be decided by external authority alone, we 
could not hesitate. It is important however to observe that (2) conforms 
to the parallel passage Philem. 5 dxovwv cov thy dydmny kal thy miotw iy 
Zxets, while (3) conforms to the other parallel passage Ephes, i. 15 kat [rn 
aydrny] tiv els mdvras Tovs dylovs. Thus, though jy éxere is so highly sup- 
ported and though it helps out the sense, it is open to suspicion. Still the 
omission in B may be an instance of that impatience of apparently super- 
fluous words, which sometimes appears in this Ms. 

i. 7 YEP HM@N AIAKONOC. 

i.7 Here there is a conflict between mss and Versions. 

Uméep hav. (1) npav AB * D* FG, 3, 13, 33, 43; 52, 80, 91, 109. This must 
also have been the reading of the Ambrosian Hilary 
though the editors make him write ‘pro vobis’), for he ex- 
plains it ‘qui eis ministravit gratiam Christi vice apostoli. 

(2) dydv 8 C D*K L P, 17, 37, 47, and many others; the Vul- 
gate, the Peshito and Harclean Syriac, the Memphitic, 
Gothic, and Armenian Versions; Chrysostom, Theodore 
of Mopsuestia (transl.), and Theodoret (in their respec- 
tive texts, for with the exception of Chrysostom there 
is nothing decisive in their comments), with others. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 251 


The Old Latin is doubtful; d, e having vobis and g nobis. 

Though the common confusion between these two words even in the 
best mss is a caution against speaking with absolute certainty, yet such 
a combination of the highest authorities as we have here for nuay doos 
not leave much room for doubt: and considerations of internal criticism 
point in the same direction. See the note on the passage. 


i, 12 TQ) IKANODCANTI. 


Against this, which is the reading of all the other ancient authorities, ;, ;2 
we have lkavaoavrt. 
(2) 1 xadécavre D* F G, 17, 80, with the Latin authorities d, e, 
f, g, m, and the Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic Ver- 
sions. It is so read also by the Ambrosian Hilary, by 
Didymus de Trin. iii. 4 (p. 346), and by Vigilius Thap- 
sensis c. Varim. i. 50 (p. 409). 
(3) 7 kadéoavtt kai txavdcavrt, found in B alone. 
Here the confusion between TwIIKAN@CANTI and TwIKadAecanT! would 
be easy, more especially at a period prior to the earliest existing Mss, 
when the iota adscript was still written; while at the same time xadécavre 
would suggest itself to scribes as the obvious word in such a connexion. It 
is a Western reading. 
The text of B obviously presents a combination of both readings. 


i, 14 €N @ EXOMEN. 

For €xouev B, the Memphitic Version, and the Arabic (Bedwell, Leipzig), i, 14 
read €cxouev. This is possibly the correct reading. In the parallel pas- éxouev or 
sage, Ephes. i. 7, several authorities (X* D*, the Memphitie and Ethiopic &*x°H«”? 
Versions, and the translator of Irenzus v. 14. 3) similarly read éryopev for 
exovev. It may be conjectured that gcyouey in these authorities was a 
harmonistic change in Ephes. i. 7, to conform to the text which they or 
their predecessors had in Col.i.14. Tischendorf on Ephes. L c. says ‘aut 
utroque loco exouey aut ecxouvey Paulum scripsisse puto’; but if any infer- 
ence can be drawn from the phenomena of the ass, they point rather to a 
different tense in the two passages. 


i, 22 ATIOKATHAASSHTE. 


This reading is perhaps the highest testimony of all to the great value i, 22 
of B. amroxaTnA- 
The variations are; ACIS 
(1) dmoxarnAd\aynre B. This also seems to be the reading of 
Hilary of Poitiers In xci Psalm. 9 (1. p. 270), who trans- 
fers the Apostle’s language into the first person, ‘cum 
aliquando essemus alienati et inimici sensus ejus in factis 
malis, nunc autem reconciliati sumus corpore carnis ejus.’ 
(2) dmoxarnAXaknrat 17. 
(3) dmoxaraddayévres D* F G, and the Latin authorities d, e, g, 


252 


li. 2 
Tov Oeov 
Xpiorod, 


Original 
reading. 


Varia- 
tions; 


(a) by in- 
terpreta- 
tion, 


(6) by 


omission, 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


m, the Gothic Version, the translator of Irenzeus (v. 14. 3), 
and others. 
(4) dzroxarn\daéer, all the other authorities. 

Of these (2) is obviously a corruption of (1) from similarity of sound ; 
and (3) is an emendation, though a careless emendation, of (1) for the sake 
of the grammar. It should have been dmoxaraddayévras. The reading 
therefore must lie between amwoxarnAAaynre and amoxatnAdagev. This latter 
however is probably a grammatical correction to straighten the syntax. 
In the Memphitic a single letter av for aq would make the difference 
between doxarn\Naynte and dmoxatrj\Aagev; but no variation from the 
latter is recorded. 

ii. 2 TOY OE0Y, XpICTOY. 

The various readings here are very numerous and at first sight per- 
plexing; but the result of an investigation into their several claims is far 
from unsatisfactory. The reading which explains all the rest may safely 
be adopted as the original. 

(1) Toy 8Eoy ypicToy. 

This is the reading of B and of Hilary of Poitiers, de Trin. ix. 6z 
(1. p. 306), who quotes the passage sacramenti Det Christi in quo etc., and 
wrongly explains it ‘Deus Christus sacramentum est.’ 

All the other variations are derived from this, either by explanation or 
by omission or by amplification. 

By explanation we get ; 

(2) Toy Oe0y O ECTIN ypicToc, 
the reading of D, with the Latin authorities d, e, which have Det quod 
est Christus. So it is quoted by Vigilius Thapsensis ce. Varim. i. 20 
(p. 380), and in a slightly longer form by Augustine de Trin. xiii. 24 (vIIL 
p. 944) mysterium Dei quod est Chrisius Jesus. 

(3) Toy @e0y EN yXPICTo. 

So it is twice quoted by Clement of Alexandria Strom. v. 10 (p. 683), 1. 
12 (p. 694); or 

TOY 6Eoy TOY EN YPICTH, 
the reading of 17. 

So the Ambrosian Hilary (both text and commentary) has Dei in 
Christo. And the Armenian has the same lengthened out, Det in Christo 
Jesu (Zohrab) or Dei patris in Christo Jesu (Uscan). 

(4) Domini quod de Christo 
is the Ethiopic rendering. Whether this represents another various read- 
ing in the Greek or whether the paraphrase is the translator’s own, it is 
impossible to say. 

The two following variations strive to overcome the difficulty by 
omission ; 

(5) Toy 8eoy, 
the reading of D by a second hand, of P, 37, 67**, 71, 80, 116. 

(6) Toy a 
the reading of Euthalius in Tischendorf’s ms; but Tischendorf adds 
the caution ‘sed non satis apparet.’ 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 253 


All the remaining readings are attempts to remedy the text by ampli- (¢) by 
fication. They fall into two classes; those which insert warpés so as to rapa 
make Xpicrod dependent on it, (7), (8), and those which separate Gcod from _ 
Xptorod by the interposition of a xai, (9), (10), (11). 

(7) Toy @e0y TaTpoc ypicToy, (i) a in- 
the reading of 8 (by the first hand). Tischendorf also adds b’”* and sae 
o“; but I read Scrivener’s coliations differently (Cod. Awg. p. 506): or govern 

TOY OE0Y TATPOC TOY yPICTOY, Xpiarob ; 
the reading of A C, 4. 

One or other is the reading of the Thebaic Version (given by Gries- 
bach) and of the Arabie (Leipz.). 

A lengthened form of the same, Det patris Christi Jesu, appears in the 
oldest Mss of the Vulgate, am. fuld. f: and the same is also the reading 
of the Memphitic (Boetticher). 

(8) Toy OE€oyY Kal TIATPOC TOY yPICTOY. 

So & (the third hand) b'™, o, and a corrector in the Harclean 
Syriac. 

(9) TOY 8E0Y Kal yPIcToY, (ii) by 
the simplest form of the other class of emendations by amplification. separating 
It is found in Cyril. Thes. p. 287. cod from 


(10) TOY GE0Y TATPpOC KAI TOY ypPICcToOyY. ee 

So 47, 73, the Peshito Syriac (ed. princeps and Schaaf). And so it junction, 
stands in the commentators Chrysostom (but with various readings) and 
Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spicil. Solesm. 1. p. 131 Det patris et Christi, 
but in Rab. Maur. Op. vi. p. 521 Dei patris Christi Jesu). 

Pelagius has Dei patris et Christi Jesu, and so the Memphitic (Wilkins). 


(11) TOY G€0Y Kal TlATpOC Kal TOY ypPICTOY. The com- 
This, which may be regarded as the latest development, is the reading ee 


of the received text. It is found in D (third hand) KL, and in the great develop- 
majority of cursives; in the text of the Harclean Syriac, and in Theodoret ment. 
and others. 

Besides these readings some copies of the Vulgate exhibit other varia- 
tions; e.g. demid. Dei patris et domini nostri Christi Jesu, tolet. Det 
Christt Jesu patris et Domint. 

It is not necessary to add any remarks. The justification of rod Gcod 
Xpicrod as the original reading will have appeared in the variations to 
which it has given rise. The passage is altogether an instructive lesson in 
textual criticism. 


ii, 16 €N Bpawcel Kal €N Tidcel. 


In this reading B stands alone among the Mss; but it is supported by ij, 6 
the Peshito Syriac and Memphitic Versions, by Tertullian (adv. Mare. v. xat or 7° 
19), and by Origen (iz Joann. x. § 11, Iv. p. 174). The testimony of Ter- 
tullian however is invalidated by the fact that he uses e¢ as the connecting 
particle throughout the passage; and the Peshito Syriac also has ‘and’ for 
7 in the two last clauses, though not in the second 


254 


ii. 18, the 
omission 
of the 
negative. 


The form 
€SPAKCr's 


ii. 23. Is 
kal to be 
omitted? 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


The rest have év Bpoae 7 év wooe. This may be explained as a very 
obvious, though not very intelligent, alteration of scribes to conform to the 
disjunctive particles in the context, 7 év péper Eoprijs 7) veounvias ) caBBarov. 

In this same context it is probable that B retains the right form veo- 
pynvias (supported here by F G and others) as against the Attic vouvynvias. 
In the same way in iii. 25 xouicerat and iv. 9 yrwpicovow B (with some 
others) has resisted the tendency to Attic forms. 


ii, 18 d EOPAKEN. 


That this is the oldest reading which the existing texts exhibit, will 
appear from the following comparisen of authorities. 

(1) & édpaxev (Eopaxev) A BN* D*, 17*, 28, 67** ; the Old Latin au- 
thorities d, e,m; the Memphitic, Ethiopic, and Arabic (Leipz.) 
Versions; Tertull. c. Marc. v. 19 (‘ex visionibus angelicis’ ; 
and apparently Marcion himself also); Origen (c. Cels. v. 8, 
I, p. 583, though the negative is here inserted by De la Rue, 
and in Cant. ii, 111. p. 63, in his quae videt); Lucifer (De non 
conv. c. haer. p. 782 Migne); the Ambrosian Hilary (ad loc. 
explaining it ‘Inflantur motum pervidentes stellarum, quas 
angelos vocat’). So too the unknown author of Quaest. ex 
N. T. ii. 62 in August. Op. ut. Appx. p. 156. Jerome (Epist. 
caxiad Alg. § 10, 1. p. 880) mentions both readings (with and 
without the negative) as found in the Greek text: and Augus- 
tine (Hpist. 149, 11. p. 514), while giving the preference to guae 
non vidit, says that some mss have quae vidit. 

(2) & py édpaxev (éopaxev) 8° C D* K L P, and the great majority of 
cursives ; 

(3) @ ov édpaxey F G. 

The negative is also read in g; in the Vulgate, the Gothic, both the 
Syriac and the Armenian Versions; in the translator of Origen Zn Rom. ix. 
§ 42 (Iv. p. 665),in Ambrose in Psalm. caviit Hap. xx. (I. p. 1222), and in 
the commentators Pelagius, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spic. 
Solesm. I. p. 132 ‘ quae nec sciunt’), Theodoret, and others. 

From a review of these authorities we infer that the insertion of the 
negative was a later correction, and that @ édpaxey (or édpaxev) represents 
the prior reading. In my note I have expressed my suspicion that 4 édpa- 
xev (or édpaxey) is itself corrupt, and that the original reading is lost. 

The unusual form éopaxev is found in 8 B* C D P, and is therefore to be 
preferred to éwpaxev. 


ii, 23 [kai] Adeldia cadmatoc. 


Here xai is found in all the Greek copies except B, but is omitted in 
these Latin authorities, m, the translator of Origen (In Rom. ix. § 42, Iv. 
p. 665), Hilary of Poitiers (Tract. in xiv Ps. §7, p. 73), the Ambrosian 
Hilary, Ambrose (de Noe 25, p. 267), and Paulinus (Zpist. 50, p.2928q.). We 
have more than once found B and Hilary alone in supporting the correct 
reading (i. 22, il. 2); and this fact gives weight to their joint authority here. 
The omission also seems to explain the impossible reading of d, e, which 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


have in religione et humilitate sensus et vexationem corporis, where for 
et vexationem we should perhaps read ad vexationem, as in the Ambrosian 
Hilary. There was every temptation for a scribe to insert the kai so as to 
make apedia range with the other datives: while on the other hand a finer 
appreciation of the bearing of the passage suggests that St Paul would have 
dissociated it, so as to give it a special prominence. 

A similar instance occurs in ili. 12 ws éxexrol rot Geov, dytot Kal rya- 
amnuevot, Where B omits the cai with 17 and the Thebaic Version. In 219 
kal ay.ot is read for dyioc kai. The great gain in force leads to the suspicion 
that this omission may be correct, notwithstanding the enormous prepon- 
derance of authority on the other side. 


iv. 8. fN@TE TA Tepl HMON. 


Of the various readings of this passage I have already spoken (p. 29 8q., iv. 8 
ire Ta 
epi Huw, 


note I, p. 235). 

The authorities are as follows : 

(I) yore ta epi nudy A B D*FG P, 10, 17, 33, 35, 37s 44, 47, 715 
III, 116, 137; d,e,g; the Armenian and Ethiopic Versions; 
Theodore of Mopsuestia?, Theodoret?, Jerome (on Ephes. vi. 
21 sq., Vl. p. 682), and Euthalius (Tischendorf’s ms). This 
is also the reading of N*, except that it has vudv for judv. 

(2) yo ta wept vudv 8 CD*°K L and the majority of cursives; 
the Memphitic, Gothic, Vulgate, and both Syriac Versions ; 
the Ambrosian Hilary, Jerome (on Philem. 1, vir. p. 748), 
Chrysostom (expressly), and others. 

The internal evidence is considered in the note on the passage, and 
found to accord with the vast preponderance of external authority in favour 
of yore ra wept judy. The reading of & by the first hand exhibits a 
transitional stage. It would appear as though the transcriber intended it 


255 


to be read yo re ra mept vucv. At all events this is the reading of 111 The vari- 
and of Io. Damasc. Op. m1. p. 214. The variation yv rd rept duay is thus ous read- 


easily explained. (1) juav would be accidentally substituted for vudv; (2) yware 
would then be read yo re; (3) the awkward and superfluous re would be 
omitted. In illustration of the tendency to conform the persons of the 
two verbs yv@, mapaxahécn (see p. 235), it may be mentioned that 17 reads 
yvere, mapaxadéonre, both here and in Ephes. vi. 22. 


1 It is true that in the text (Spicil. 
Solesm. I. p. 123, Rab. Maur. Op. vu. 
p. 539, Migne) he is credited with the 
later Latin reading ut cognoscat quae 
circa vos sunt, but his comment im- 
plies the other; ‘Quoniam omnia 
vobis nota faciet Tychicus illa quae 
erga me sunt, propterea a me directus 
est cum Onesimo fratre qui a vobis 
venerat, ut nota vobis faciant quae 
erga nos sunt [= yore Ta rept judy] 


et oblectent vos per suum adventum 
[=kai mapaxadéoy Tas Kapdlas vudr], 
omnia quae hic aguntur manifesta 
facientes vobis.’ See Spicil. Solesm. 
l.c.; the comment is mutilated in 
Rab. Maur. Op. 1.c. 

2 In the text; but in the commen- 
tary he is made to write wa yw ydop, 
gnol, Ta wept judy, an impossible 
reading. 


ings ac- 
counted 


256 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


iv. 15, KAT OIKON aYTON. 


iv. 15 The readings here are: 

abriy. (1) avréy® A OP, 5, 9, 17, 23, 34, 39, 47, 73; together with the 
Memphitic Version, the Arabic (Leipz.), and Euthalius (Tisch- 
endorf’s ms). The Memphitic Version is commonly but 
wrongly quoted in favour of avrovd, owing to a mistranslation 
of Wilkins. But both Wilkins and Boetticher give without 
any various reading MovHt, i.e. oikoy avtav. This seems also 
to be the reading of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spic. Solesm. 
i. p. 133) guae in domo eorum est ecclesia ; though in Rab. 
Maur. Op. vi. p. 540 his text runs guae in domo ejus est eccle- 
stam, and he is made to say Vympham cum omnibus suis 
qui in domo ejus sunt, 

(2) atrijs B 67**, 

(3) avrob D F G K Land the great majority of cursives; and so 
the Gothic Version, Chrysostom, and Theodoret (the latter 
distinctly). 

The singular, whether avrod or avrijs, is the reading of the old Latin 

and Vulgate, which have ews, and ofthe Armenian. The pronoun is also sin- 

Nymphas gular in the Peshito and Harclean Syriac. In this language the same con- 
or Nym- sonants express masculine and feminine alike, the difference lying in the 
pha? pointing and vocalisation. And here the copies are inconsistent with them- 
selves. In the Peshito (both the editio princeps and Schaaf) the proper 

name is vocalised as a feminine Numphé (=Nipdn), and yet mduns 

The Syriac is treated as having a masculine affix, car’ olkov avrov. Inthe text of the 
versions. Harclean calles is pointed thus, as a feminine avrijs; while the margin 


gives the alternative reading calsx (without the point)=avrov. The name 

itself is written Nympha, which according to the transliteration of this version 

might stand either for a masculine (as Barnaba, Luka, in the context, for 

BapvaBas, Aovkas) or for a feminine (since Demas, Epaphras, are written with 

The Latin 22 8). The Latin ejus leaving the gender undetermined, the Latin commen- 

author- _ tators were free to take either Nymphas or Nympha; and, as Nympha was a 

ities. common Latin form of Niydn, they would naturally adopt the female name. 
So the commentator Hilary distinctly. 

It should be added that the word is accentuated as a masculine yupday 

in De L P, and as a feminine riuday in B° and Euthalius (Tischendorf’s ms). 


1 More probably the latter. In lator doubtless considered the name 
Rom. xvi the terminations -a and ds to be a contraction for Julianus. The 
for the feminine and masculine names proper Syriac termination -a@ seems 
respectively are carefully reproduced only to be employed for the Greek -as 
in the Harclean Version. In ver. 15 in very familiar names such as Bar. 
indeed we have Julias, but the trans- naba, Luka. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 257 


On the meaning of mrAnpepa. 


THE verb mAnpody has two senses. It signifies either_(1)‘To fill’,e, g. The mean- 
Acts ii. 2 émAnpwoev Sdov Tov oikov; or (2) ‘To fulfil, complete, perfect, ae of the 
accomplish’, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 56 iva wAnpwbdow ai ypadpai, Rom. xiii. 8 sNpaey: 
vowov mremAnpoxev, Acts xii. 25 mAnpdcavres THY diaxoviay. The latter sense 
indeed is derived from the former, but practically it has become separate 
from it. The word occurs altogether about a hundred times in the New 
Testament, and for every one instance of the former sense there are at 
least four of the latter. 

In the investigations which have hitherto been made into the significa- False issue 
tion of the derived substantive mAjpopya, as.it occurs in the New Testa- se ae 
ment, an almost exclusive prominence has been given to the former mean- BW a 
ing of the verb; and much confusion has arisen in consequence. The 
question has been discussed whether wAnpopa_has.an active ora passive 
sense, whether it describes the filling substance or the filled receptacle : 
and not unfrequently critics have arrived at the result that different 
grammatical senses must be attached to it in different passages, even resulting 
within the limits of the same epistle. Thus it has been maintained that in theolo- 
the word has a passive sense ‘id quod impletur’ in Ephes. i. 23 19 éxkAnoia See int 
Htis €oTly TO TOpa avrov, TO TANPopa Tov Ta TavTa év Tac mANpovpEvoL, 
and an active sense ‘id quod implet’ in Ephes. iii. 19 iva mAnpwOqre eis may 
TO mApw@pa ToD Gcod. Indeed so long as we see in wAnpodr only the sense 
‘to fill’, and refuse to contemplate the sense ‘to complete’, it seems im- 
possible to escape from the difficulties which meet us at every turn, other- 
wise than by assigning to its derivative mAjpopa both an active and a 
passive sense; but the greatest violence is thus done to the connexion of 
theological ideas. 

Moreover the disregard of lexical rules is not less violent. Substan- and disre- 
tives in -»a, formed from the perfect passive, appear always to have a gard of 
passive sense. They may denote an abstract notion or a concrete thing ; arm art 
they may signify the action itself regarded as complete, or the product of 
the action; but in any case they give the result of the agency involved in Meaning 


the corresponding verb. Such for example are ayyeApa ‘a message’, dupa a eae 
‘a knot’, apyvpopa ‘a silver-made vessel’, BovAevya ‘a plan’, dccaiopa ‘a ve 


righteous deed’ or ‘an ordinance’, ¢jrnwa ‘an investigation’, knpuyypa ‘a 
roclamation’, x®Avua ‘a hindrance’, duoimpua ‘a likeness’, épaya ‘a vision’ 
’ Nes ee epee ? 


1 The meaning of this word wAjpwua 
is the subject of a paper De vocis 1)7- 
pwua vario sensu in N. YL. in Storr’s 
Opusc. Acad. 1. p. 144. 8q., and of an ela- 
borate note in Fritzsche’s Rom. 11. p. 
469 sq. Storr attempts to show that 
it always has an active sense ‘id quod 
implet’ in the New Testament. Fritz- 
sche rightly objects to assigning a 
persistently active sense to a word 
which has a directly passive termi- 
nation: and he himself attributes to 


COL. 


it two main senses, ‘id quod imple- 
tur’ and ‘id quo res impletur’, the 
latter being the more common. He 
apparently considers that he has sur- 
mounted the difficulties involved in 
Storr’s view, for he speaks of this last 
as a passive sense, though in fact it is 
nothing more than ‘id quod implet’ 
expressed in other words. In Rom. 
xiii. 10 mA7jpwua vouov he concedes an 
active sense ‘legis completio’, h. e. 
‘observatio’, 


17 


258 


Apparent 
excep- 
tions. 


TAHpPWLA 
connected 
with the 
second 
sense of 
mAnpovv. 


Its uses in 
classical 
writers. 


(1) ‘A 
ship’s 
crew.’ 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


orpopa ‘a carpet’, cdaipopa ‘a round thing’, ete. In many cases the 
same word will have two meanings, both however passive; it will denote 
both the completed action and the result or object of the action: e.g. 
dprayyua the ‘robbery’ or the ‘booty’, dyra\\aypa the ‘exchange’ or the 
‘thing given or taken in exchange’, Ojpevpa the ‘hunt’ or the ‘prey’, 
matnpa the ‘tread’ or the ‘carpet’, and the like. But in all cases the word 
is strictly passive; it describes that which might have stood after the 
active verb, either as the direct object or as the cognate notion. The 
apparent exceptions are only apparent. Sometimes this deceptive appear- 
ance is in the word itself. Thus xca\vppya ‘a veil’ seems to denote ‘that 
which covers’, but it is really derived from another sense and construction 
of xadvrrecy, not ‘to hide’, but ‘to wrap round’ (e.g. Hom. JU. v. 315 mpdobe 
dé of wémdo1o haewod mrvyp’ exadupev, XXi. 321 Tocony of dow Kaburepbe 
kav), and therefore is strictly passive. Sometimes again we may be led 
astray by the apparent connexion with the following genitive. Thus in 
Plut. Mor. 78 © dyAwpa tod mpoxorrew the word does not mean, as might 
appear at first sight, ‘a thing showing’ but ‘a thing shown’, ‘a demon- 
stration given’; nor in 2 Thess. i. 5 evdcvyya rs Stxaias xpicews must we 
explain évdevypa ‘a thing proving’, but ‘a thing proved’, ‘a proof’, And 
the same is probably the case also with such expressions as cupmrociwy 
épéO.opa (Critias in Athen. xiii. p. 600 D), réEou pipa (Asch. Pers. 147), 
and the like ; where the substantives in -~a are no more deprived of their 
passive sense by the connexion, than they are in vodnpa moder Or orpdpa 
kAiyns; though in such instances the license of poetical construction may 
often lead to a false inference. Analogous to this last class of cases is Eur. 
Troad. 824 Znvis éxers kvAik@v mANpopa, kadXicoray Aarpetay, not ‘ the filling’, 
but ‘the fulness of the cups, the brimming cups, of Zeus.’ 

Now if we confine ourselves to the second of the two senses above 
ascribed to mAnpodv, it seems possible to explain wAjpopa in the same way, 
at all events in all the theological passages of St Paul and St John, without 
doing any violence to the grammatical form. As mAnpody is ‘to complete’, 
80 mAjpepa is ‘that which is completed’, i.e. the complement’, the full 
tale, the entire number or quantity, the plenitude, the perfection. 

This indeed is the primary sense to which its commonest usages in 
classical Greek can be most conveniently referred. Thus it signifies (1) 
‘A ship’s crew’: e.g. Xen. Hell.i. 6. 16 dia Tro €« mo\dGv TANpopdtav és 
édlyas (vais) ékdedéxOat rods dpiorovs épéras. In this sense, which is very 
frequent, it is generally explained as having an active force, ‘that which 
fills the ships’; and this very obvious explanation is recommended by the 
fact that m\npody vaiv is a recognised expression for ‘manning a ship’, e.g. 


1 The English word complement has 
two distinct senses. It is either (i) 
the complete set, the entire quantity 
or number, which satisfies a given 
standard or cadre, as e.g. the com- 
plement of a regiment; or (ii) the 
number or quantity which, when added 
to @ preexisting number or quantity, 
produces completeness; as e.g, the 


complement of an angle, i.e. the angle 
by which it falls short of being a 
complete right angle. In other words, 
it is either the whole or the part. As 
a theological term, mAjpwua corre- 
sponds to the first of these two senses; 
and with this meaning alone the word 
‘complement’ will be used in the fol- 
lowing dissertation. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 259 


Xen. Hell. i. 6.24. But wdjpoua is used not only of the crew which mans 

a ship, but also of the ship which is manned with a crew; e.g. Polyb. i. 49, 

4, 5, THY mapovolay Tov TANpwpaTer...Ta mpoopdatws Twapayeyovora mANpa- 

para, Lucian Ver. Hist. ii. 37, 38, awd dvo0 mAnpopdtwy éuaxorro...mévre yap 

eixyov mAxpopuara ; and it is difficult to see how the word could be trans- 

ferred from the crew to the ship as a whole, if the common explanation 

were correct. Fritzsche (Rom. 11. p. 469 sq.), to whom I am chiefly indebted 

for the passages quoted in this paragraph, has boldly given the word two 

directly opposite senses in the two cases, explaining it in the one ‘ea quibus 

naves complentur, /.¢. vel socii navales vel milites classiarii vel utrique’, 

and in the other ‘id quod completur, v.c. navigium’; but this severance of 

meaning can hardly be maintained. On the other hand, if we suppose that 

the crew is so called as ‘the complement’, (i.e. ‘not that which fills the 

ship’, but ‘that which is itself full or complete in respect of the ship’), 

we preserve the passive sense of the word, while at the same time the 
transference to the fully equipped and manned vessel itself becomes natural. 

In this sense ‘a complement’ we have the word used again of an army, 

Aristid. Or. I. p. 381 pijre avrapkers €reo Oat mANPwua Evds oikeiov oTparevpaTos (2) ‘Popu- 
mapacyécba. (2) It sometimes signifies ‘the population of a city’, Arist. lation.’ 
Pol, iii. 13 (p. 1284) pr) pevroe Suvarot rARpwpa wapacyerba ToAews (COMP. 

iv. 4, p. 1291). Clearly the same idea of completeness underlies this 
meaning of the word, so that here again it signifies ‘the complement’: 

comp. Dion. Hal. A. R&. vi. 51 rot & ddtyou Kal ovk agcouaxyov mAnpoparos 

TO mActov eore Syporekov K.7.A., Hur. Lon 663 rév hirtov wAjpwpu’ aOpoicas (3) ‘Total 
‘the whole body of his friends’. (3) ‘The entire sum’, Arist. Vesp. 660 amount.’ 
TovT@Y TAnpopa TadavT eyyds Surxidia yiyverac jpiv, “ From these sources a (4) ‘Entire 
total of nearly two thousand talents accrues to us’. (4) ‘The full term’, term.’ 
Herod. iii. 22 dySaxovra & rea Cons mAjpwpa advdpt paxporaroy mpoxéeo Oat. (5) ‘Fulfil- 
(5) ‘The perfect attainment’, ‘ the full accomplishment’, e.g. Philo de Abr. ment.’ 
46 (IL. p. 39) wAjpopa xpnotav €Aridov. In short the fundamental mean- 

ing of the word generally, though perhaps not universally, is neither ‘the 

filling material’, nor ‘the vessel filled’; but ‘that which is complete in 

itself’, or in other words ‘ plenitude, fulness, totality, abundance’. 

In the Gospels the uses of the word present some difficulty. (1) In Use of 
Matt. ix. 16 atpee yap 7d wAnpo@pa adrod amd Tod ivariov Kat xeipoy cxicua TANPYHA 
yivera, it refers to the émiBAnyua paxous dyvapou which has gone before ; but =i eGoe 
mdjpopa need not therefore be equivalent to émiBAnua so as to mean the Matt. ix. 
patch itself, as is often assumed. The following pronoun avrov is most 16. 
naturally referred to émiSAnpa; and if so mAnpwpa describes ‘the com- 
pleteness’, which results from the patch. The statement is thus thrown 
into the form of a direct paradox, the very completeness making the 
garment more imperfect than before. In the parallel passage Mark Mark ii. 
ii, 21 the variations are numerous, but the right reading scems certainly 21. 
to be aipes ro mANpopa am avTod, TO Katvov TOD madaov k.t.A. The reccived 
text omits the preposition before avrod, but a glance at the authorities is 
convincing in favour of its insertion. In this case the construction will be 
aiper TO mANpopa (NOM.) am’ adrod (i.e. Tov iwariov, which has been men- 
tioned immediately before), 7d kxawov (rAnpwpa) tod madatod (ipariou) ; 

‘The completeness takes away from the garment, the new completeness 
17—2 


260 


Mark vi. 
43+ 


Mark viii. 
20. 


Usage in 
St Paul’s 
Epistles 

1 Cor. x. 
26, 


Rom. xiii. 
10. 


Rom, xv. 
29. 

Gal. iv. 4. 
Eph. i, 10. 


Rom. xi. 
25. 


Rom. xi. 
12, 


General 
result. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


of the oid garment’, where the paradox is put still more emphatically. 
(2) In Mark vi. 43 the right reading is kai jjpav kdacpdtav Sddexa Kopi- 
vous mAnpouara, i.e. ‘full’ or ‘complete measures’, where the apposition to 
kopivous obviates the temptation to explain wAypepara as ‘ea quae im- 
plent’. On the other hand in Mark viii. 20 mocwv omvpidov mhynpopata 
k\acparev npate; this would be the prima facie explanation; comp. 
Eccles. iv. 6 dyaov é€ore sAjpopa Spakos dvamaicews vmep TAnpepata Svo 
Spaxdv poyOov. But it is objectionable to give an active sense to rAjpopa 
under any circumstances; and if in such passages the patch itself is meant, 
it must still be so called, not because it fills the hole, but because it is 
itself fulness or full measure as regards the defect which needs sup- 
plying. 

From the Gospels we pass to the Epistles of St Paul, whose usage 
bears more directly on our subject. And here the evidence seems all to 
tend in the same direction. (1) In 1 Cor. x. 26 tod Kupiov yap 7 yn Kal ro 
TAnpopa avrjs it occurs in a quotation from Ps, xxiv (xxiii). 1. The ex- 
pressions ro 7Anpopa ths ys, TO TANpwpa THS Gadacons, Occur several times 
in the uxx (e.g. Ps. xevi (xcv). 11, Jer. viii. 16), where ro mAnpopa is a 
translation of xdp, a word denoting primarily ‘fulness’, but having in its 
secondary uses a considerable latitude of meaning ranging between ‘con- 
tents’ and ‘abundance’. This last sense seems to predominate in its 
Greek rendering 7Anpopa, and indeed the other is excluded altogether in 
some passages, e.g. Cant. v. 13 emt mAnpepata vddrwv. (2) In Rom. xiii. 10 
TAnpwpa vouou 7 ayarn, the best comment on the meaning of the word is 
the context, ver. 8 o dyamdy roy €repov vopov meTAnpoxev, 80 that mypopa 
here means the ‘completeness’ and so ‘fulfilment, accomplishment’: see 
the note on Gal. v.14. (3) In Rom. xv. 29 ev wAnpwpare edrAoyias Xpiorod 
édevoopat, it plainly has the sense of ‘fulness, abundance’. (4) In Gal. 
iv. 4 dre dé HAOev TO TANP@pa Tov xpovov and Hphes. i. 10 eis oixovopiay rod 
mAnp®patos Toy Katpoy, its force is illustrated by such passages as Mark 
i. 15 mwemAnpwtat 6 Katpos Kal Hyytkey 7 Baowdeia x.7.A., Luke xxi, 24 dype 
ov tAnpabadow xatpot eOvav (comp. Acts ii. I, Vil. 23, 30, ix. 23, xxiv. 27), so 
that the expressions will mean ‘the full measure of the time, the full tale 
of the seasons’. (5) In Rom. xi. 25 mépwois dri pépous TH “Iopand yéyo- 
vev Gypis ov TO TANpopa Tov eOvay eioeAOn, it seems to mean ‘the full num- 
ber’, ‘the whole body’, (whether the whole absolutely, or the whole rela- 
tively to God’s purpose), of whom only a part had hitherto been gathered 
into the Church. (6) In an earlier passage in this chapter the same 
expression occurs of the Jews, xi. 12 ef d€ ro mapamr@pa avtay mAovTos 
Kogpov kat TO HTTHa avTav TAovTOS ebvav, TOT® paddov TO TANpwpLA adTav. 
Here the antithesis between #rrnyza and mAjpeya, ‘failure’ and ‘fulness’, is 
not sufficiently direct to fix the sense of mAnpwya; and (in the absence of 
anything to guide us in the context) we may fairly assume that it is used 
in the same sense of the Jews here, as of the Gentiles in ver. 25. 

Thus, whatever hesitation may be felt about the exact force of the 
word as it occurs in the Gospels, yet substantially one meaning runs 
through all the passages hitherto quoted from St Paul. In these mAjpopa 
has its proper passive force, as a derivative from mAnpovy ‘ to make com- 
plete’. It is ‘the full complement, the entire measure, the plenitude, the 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS, 261 


fulness’. There is therefore a presumption in favour of this meaning in 
other passages where it occurs in this Apostle’s writings. 

We now come to those theological passages in the Epistles to the Theologi- 
Colossians and Ephesians and in the Gospel of St John, for the sake of ©! pas- 


which this investigation has been undertaken. They are as follows; Reerh ae 
Col. i. 19 ev adr@ evddxnoey mav TO TANp@pa KaTOLKH CAL, Colossians 


Col. ii. 9 év avdr@ Karoiket wavy TO mAnpwpa Tis OedtnTOs Topatikds, Kai 2nd Ephe- 
€oTé ev AUTO TeTANP@pEVOL. siaraatay 

Ephes. i. 23 avrov edaxev xehadyy vmép mavta TH exkAnoig, Aris eat Td 
TOpa avtod, TO TANP@pa Tov Ta mavra ev Tao TANPOUpEVOV. 

Ephes. iii, 19 iva wAnp@bire eis wav TO TANP@pa TOU Ccod. 

Ephes. iv. 13 eis dvdpa réAevov, eis érpov ydckias Tod mAnpwparos Tod 
Xptorov. 

John i. 14, 16, cat 6 Adyos capé eyévero Kat eoxyvacey ev piv (kal ebea- St John. 
capeba thy dd€av aitod, ddéav ds povoyevods mapa matpds) mANpys xXaprTos 
kal ddnOelas...€k ToD TAnpw@patos avToU Nuets mavTes EAdBopev Kal Xap avTt 
xapiros. 

To these should be added two passages from the Ignatian Epistles, Ignatius, 
which as belonging to the confines of the Apostolic age afford valuable 
illustration of the Apostolic language. 

Ephes. inscr. "Iyvatws, 6 kai Ocohopos, TH evAoynpevn ev peyeber Ocod 
marpos mAnpoparte®...7H exkAnoia TH a€topaxapioTe TH ovon ev Edéo k.t.d. 

Trail. inscr. "Iyvarios, 6 kat Gcopdpos...€xkAnoia ayia TH ovon ev Tpadde- 
ow...ny Kat domagopat ev TS TANPa@paTL, ev ATooTOALK@ XapakTipt. 

It will be evident, I think, from the passages in St Paul, that the word The term 
TAnpopa ‘fulness, plenitude’, must have had a more or less definite theo- has a re- 
logical value when he wrote. This inference, which is suggested by the eee 
frequency of the word, seems almost inevitable when we consider the form 
of the expression in the first passage quoted, Col. i. 19. The absolute use 
of the word, ray ré Ajpewpa ‘all the fulness’, would otherwise be unintelli- 
gible, for it does not explain itself. In my notes I have taken o eds to be 
the nominative to evddxycev, but if the subject of the verb were ray rd 
mAnpopa, aS Some suppose, the inference would be still more necessary. The 
word however, regarded as a theological term, does not appear to have been 


1 The first of the two passages is 
containedin the short Syriac recension, 
though loosely translated; the other is 
wanting there. I need not stop to en- 
quire whether the second was written 
by Ignatius himself or not. Theseven 
epistles, even if not genuine (as I now 
believe them to be), can hardly date 
later than the middle of the second 
century and are therefore early enough 
to afford valuable illustrations of the 
Apostles’ language. 

2 The common texts read kal wAnpu- 
part, but there can be little doubt 
(from a comparison of the authorities) 
that xai should be struck out. ‘The 


present Syriac text has et perfectae for 
awAnpouatt; but there is no reason 
for supposing that the Syriac trans- 
lator had another reading before 
him. A slight change in the Syriac, 


ralxazs for réulmoxz sna, 


would bring this version into entire 
accordance with the Greek; and the 
confusion was the more easy, because 
the latter word occurs in the imme- 
diate context. Or the translator may 
have indulged in a paraphrase ac- 
cording to his wont; just as in the 
longer Latin version tAnpduare here 
is translated repletae, 


262 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


adopted, like so many other expressions in the Apostolic writers}, from the 
derived nomenclature of Alexandrian Judaism. At least no instance of its occur- 
from Pa- rence in this sense is produced from Philo. We may therefore conjecture 
lestineand that it had a Palestinian origin, and that the Essene Judaizers of Colosse, 
not Alex- : : : : : ; : 
andria. Whom St Paul is confronting, derived it from this source. In this case it 


would represent the Hebrew 7, of which it is a translation in the Lxx, 


and the Aramaic wulass or some other derivative of the same root, 
such being its common rendering in the Peshito. 
It denotes The sense in which St Paul employs this term was doubtless the sense 
thetotality which he found already attached to it. He means, as he explicitly states in 
nel en * the second Christological passage of the Colossian Epistle (ii. 9), the ple- 
ers, ete, roma, the plenitude of ‘the Godhead’ or ‘of Deity’. In the first passage 
in the (i. 19), though the word stands without the addition ris Geornros, the signi- 
Colossian fication required by the context is the same. The true doctrine of the one 
oral Christ, who is the absolute mediator in the creation and government of the 
world, is opposed to the false doctrine of a plurality of mediators, ‘ thrones, 
dominions, principalities, powers’. An absolute and unique position is 
claimed for Him, because in Him resides ‘all the pleroma’, ie. the full 
complement, the aggregate of the Divine attributes, virtues, energies. This 
is another way of expressing the fact that He is the Logos, for the Logos is 
the synthesis of all the various duvdyes, in and by which God manifests 
Himself whether in the kingdom of nature or in the kingdom of grace. 
Analogyto § This application is in entire harmony with the fundamental meaning of 
its usage _the word. The term has been transferred to the region of theology, but in 
oer itself it conveys exactly the same idea as before. It implies that all the 
several elements which are required to realise the conception specified are 
in Philo, present, «nd that each appears in its full proportions. Thus Philo, describing 
ae the ideal state of prosperity which will result from absolute obedience 
Y> to God’s law, mentions among other blessings the perfect development of 
the family: ‘Men shail be fathers and fathers too of goodly sons, and women 
shall be mothers of goodly children, so that each household shall be the 
pleroma of a numerous kindred, where no part or name is wanting of all 
those which are used to designate relations, whether in the ascending line, 
as parents, uncles, grandfathers, or again in the descending line in like 
manner, as brothers, nephews, sons’ sons, daughters’ sons, cousins, cousins’ 
and in sons, kinsmen of all degrees*’ So again Aristotle, criticizing the Re- 
Aristotle, public of Plato, writes; ‘Socrates says that a city (or state) is composed of 
ee four classes, as its indispensable elements (ray dvayxaorarwv): by these he 
means the weaver, the husbandman, the shoemaker, and the builder; and 
again, because these are not sufficient by themselves, he adds the smith 
and persons to look after the necessary cattle, and besides them the mer- 
chant and the retail dealer: these together make up the pleroma of a 
city in its simplest form (ratra wavta yiverar mAnpwpua THs MpeTNs TodEws); 


1 See the notes on Col. i. 15 sq. 7 dvduaros tay boa éemipnulferat K.T.r. 

2 de Praem. et Poen. 18 (11. p. 425). The construction of the subsequent 
The important words are ds éxacrov part of the sentence is obscure; and 
oixov mAjpwua elvac modvavOpdrov cuvy- for duolovs we should probably read 
yevelas, pndevds édrecPOdvros i} mépovs opolws. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 263 
thus he assumes that a city is formed to supply the bare necessities of life 

(rév dvayxaiwy xdpw) etc, From these passages it will be seen that the 

adequacy implied by the word, as so used, consists not less in the variety 

of the elements than in the fulness of the entire quantity or number. 

So far the explanation seems clear. But when we turn from the Colos- Transition 
sian letter to the Ephesian, it is necessary to bear in mind the different from Co- 
aims of the two epistles. While in the former the Apostle’s main object setae uo 
: arabe ng tis e- 
is to assert the supremacy of the Person of Christ, in the latter his prin- isn. 
cipal theme is the life and energy of the Church, as dependent on Christ*. 

So the pleroma residing in Christ is viewed from a different aspect, no 
longer in relation to God, so much as in relation to the Church. It is that Corre- 
plenitude of Divine graces and virtues which is communicated through sponding 
Christ to the Church as His body. The Church, as 7deally regarded, the eg 
bride ‘without spot or wrinkle or any such thing’, becomes in a manner 74,410 
identified with Him’. All the Divine graces which reside in Him are to the 
imparted to her; His ‘fulness’ is communicated to her: and thus she may Church. 
be said to be His pleroma (i. 23). This is the ideal Church. The actual 
militant Church must be ever advancing, ever struggling towards the 
attainment of this ideal. Hence the Apostle describes the end of all 

offices and administrations in the Church to be that the collective body 

may attain its full and mature growth, or (in other words) may grow up 

to the complete stature of Christ’s fulness’. But Christ’s fulness is God’s 

fulness. Hence in another passage he prays that the brethren may by 

the indwelling of Christ be fulfilled till they attain to the pleroma of God 

(iii. 19). It is another way of expressing the continuous aspiration and 

effort after holiness which is enjoined in our Lord’s precept, ‘Ye shall 

be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect’®. 

The Gospel of St John, written in the first instance for the same Gospel of 
churches to which the Epistle to the Ephesians was sent, has numerous and St John. 
striking points of resemblance with St Paul’s letter. This is the case here. 

As St Paul tells the Ephesians that the ideal Church is the pleroma of 
Christ and that the militant Church must strive to become the pleroma 
of Christ, so St John (i. 14 sq.) after describing our Lord as povoyerns, 
i.e. the unique and absolute representative of the Father, and as such 
‘tull (wAjpys) of grace and of truth’, says that they, the disciples, had 
‘received out of His pleroma’ ever fresh accessions of grace. Each indi- 


1 Arist. Pol. iv. 4 (p. 1291). 

2 See the notes on Col. il. 19 (p. 
266). 

3 Ephes. v. 27 sq. 

4 The Apostle in this passage 
(Hphes. iv. 13) is evidently contem- 
plating the collective body, and not 
the individual believers. He writes of 
awdyres, not mdvres, and dvipa rédecov, 
not dvdpas redelovs. As he has said 
before évd éxdory tua €656n [h] xdpus 
KaTa TO wérpov Tis Swpeds rod Xpr- 
arod, so now he describes the result of 


these various partial graces bestowed 
cn individuals to be the unity and 
mature growth of the whole, ‘the 
building up of the body’, wexpl Karav- 
THhowpev ol mavres els Thy évérnra... 
els &vdpa Tédevov, els wérpov HAtklas TOO 
wAnpwuaros Tov Xpicrod. This cor- 
porate being must grow up into the 
one colossal Man, the standard of 
whose spiritual and moral stature is 
nothing less than the pleroma of 
Christ Himself. 

5 Matt. v. 48. 


264 


Tenatian 
letters. 


Gnostic 
sects. 


The Ce- 
rinthians, 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


vidual believer in his degree receives a fraction of that pleroma which is 
communicated whole to the ideal Church. 

The use of the word is not very different in the Ignatian letters. St 
Tenatius greets this same Ephesian Church, to which St Paul and St John 
successively here addressed the language already quoted, as ‘blessed in 
greatness by the pleroma of God the Father’, ie. by graces imparted 
from the pleroma. To the Trallians again he sends a greeting ‘in the ple- 
roma’, where the word denotes the sphere of Divine gifts and operations, so 
that év 7@ mAnpe@pare is almost equivalent to ev 7 Kupio or €v TO mvevpart. 

When we turn from Catholic Christianity to the Gnostic sects we find 
this term used, though (with one important exception) not in great fre- 
quency. Probably however, if the writings of the earlier Gnostics had 
been preserved, we should have found that it occupied a more important 
place than at present appears. One class of early Gnostics separated the 
spiritual being Christ from the man Jesus; they supposed that the Christ 
entered Jesus at the time of His baptism and left him at the moment of 
llis crucifixion. Thus the Christ was neither born as a man nor suffered 
as a man. In this way they obviated the difficulty, insuperable to the 
Gnostic mind, of conceiving the connexion between the highest spi- 
ritual agency and gross corporeal matter, which was involved in the 
Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation and Passion, and which Gnostics of 
another type more effectually set aside by the theory of docetism, i.e. by 
assuming that the human body of our Lord was only a phantom body and 
not reai flesh and blood. Irenzeus represents the former class as teaching 
that ‘Jesus was the receptacle of the Christ’, and that the Christ ‘de- 
scended upon him from heaven in the form of a dove and after He had 
declared (to mankind) the nameless Father, entered (again) into the ple- 
roma imperceptibly and invisibly’!. Here no names are given. But in 
another passage he ascribes precisely the same doctrine, without however 
naming the pleroma, to Cerinthus”. And in a third passage, which links 
together the other two, this same father, after mentioning this heresiarch, 
again alludes to the doctrine which maintained that the Christ, having 
descended on Jesus at his baptism, ‘flew back again into His own ple- 
roma’*, In this last passage indeed the opinions of Cerinthus are men- 


1 iii, 16. 1 ‘Quoniam autem sunt pleroma’. This expression is the con- 


qui dicunt Iesum quidem receptaculum 
Christi fuisse, in quem desuper quasi 
columbam descendisse, et quum indi- 
casset innominabilem Patrem, incom- 
prehensibiliter et invisibiliter intrasse 
in pleroma’. 

2 ji. 26. 1 ‘post baptismum descen- 
disse in eum ab ea principalitate, quae 
est super omnia, Christum figura co- 
lumbae; et tunc annuntiasse incog- 
nitum Patrem et virtutes perfecisse: 
in fine autem revolasse iterum Christam 
de Iesu et Iesum passum esse et 
resurrexisse, etc.’ 

8 jii, x1. 1 ‘iterum revolasse in suum 


necting link between the other two 
passages. This third passage is quoted 
more at length above, p. 112. In this 
passage however the reference of illi 
in ‘quemadmodum illi dicunt’ is 
doubtful. Several critics refer it to 
the Valentinians, and certainly some 
characteristic errors of the Valentinian 
teaching are specified immediately 
after. The probable explanation seems 
to be that it is intended to include 
the Gnostics generally, and that Ire- 
ngus mentions in illustration the 
principal errors of Gnostic teaching, 
irrespective of the schools to which 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 265 


tioned in connexion with those of other Gnostics, more especially the 
Valentinians, so that we cannot with any certainty attribute this expression 

to Cerinthus himself. But in the first passage the unnamed heretics who 
maintained this return of the Christ ‘into the pleroma’ are expressly dis- 
tinguished from the Valentinians; and presumably therefore the allusion 

is to the Cerinthians, to whom the doctrine, though not the expression, is 

ascribed in the second passage. Thus there seems to be sufficient reason Connexion 
for attributing the use of the term to Cerinthus'. This indeed is probable of this use 
on other grounds. The term pleroma, we may presume, was common to we St 

. F . . «, Paul and 
St Paul and the Colossian heretics whom he controverts. To both alike it yin the 
conveyed the same idea, the totality of the divine powers or attributes or Colossian 
agencies or manifestations. But after this the divergence begins. They heretics. 
maintained that a single divine power, a fraction of the pleroma, resided in 

our Lord: the Apostle urges on the contrary, that the whole pleroma has 

its abode in Him*. The doctrine of Cerinthus was a development of the 
Colossian heresy, as I have endeavoured to show above*, He would 
therefore inherit the term pleroma from it. At the same time he The ple- 
seems to have given a poetical colouring to his doctrine, and so doing roma 

to have treated the pleroma as a locality, a higher spiritual region, localised. 
from which this divine power, typified by the dove-like form, issued 

forth as on wings, and to which, taking flight again, it reascended 

before the Passion. If so, his language would prepare the way for the still 

more elaborate poetic imagery of the Valentinians, in which the pleroma, 
conceived as a locality, a region, an abode of the divine powers, is con- 
spicuous. 

The attitude of later Gnostics towards this term is widely divergent. The term 
The word is not, so far as lam aware, once mentioned in connexion with avoided by 
the system of Basilides. Indeed the nomenclature of this heresiarch be- Basilides, 
longs to a wholly different type; and, as he altogether repudiated the 
doctrine of emanations‘, it is not probable that he would have any fondness 
for a term which was almost inextricably entangled with this doctrine. 

On the other hand with Valentinus and the Valentinians the doctrine but promi- 
of the pleroma was the very key-stone of their system; and, since at first nent in 
sight it is somewhat difficult to connect their use of the term with St Paul’s, V#!enti- 

a few words on this subject may not be out of place. TE 

Valentinus then dressed his system in a poetic imagery not unlike the Poetic 

teaching 


they belong. He goes on to say that 
St John in his Gospel desired to ex- 
clude ‘omnia talia’. 

1 IT have not been able however to 
verify the statement in Harvey’s Ire- 
néus I. p. lxxiii that ‘ The Valentinian 
notion of a spiritual marriage between 
the souls of the elect and the angels 
of the Pleroma originated with Ce- 
rinthus’, 

2 See p. 1or sq., and the notes on 
i. 19. 

3 p. 107 sq. 


4 Hippol. R. H. vii. 22 gpevyer yap 
mdvu Kal dédocke Tas KaTa& mpoBodnv Tov 
yeyovétav ovcias 6 Baowrelins. Basi- 
lides asked why the absolute First 
Cause should be likened to a spider 
spinning threads from itself, or a smith 
or carpenter working up his materials, 
The later Basilideans, apparently in- 
fluenced by Valentinianism, super- 
added to the teaching of their founder 
in this respect; but the strong language 
quoted by Hippolytus leaves no doubt 
about the mind of Basilides himself, 


266 


of Valen- 
tinus. 


Topogra- 
phical 
conception 
of the ple- 
roma. 
Antithesis 
of pleroma 
and keno- 
ma, 


Pleroma 
the abode 
of the 
ons. 


Different 
forms of 
Valenti- 
nianism. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


myths of his master Plato. But a myth or story involves action, and action 
requires a scene of action. Hence the mysteries of theology and cosmogony 
and redemption call for a topographical representation, and the pleroma 
appears not as an abstract idea, but as a locality. 

The Valentinian system accordingly maps out the universe of things 
into two great regions, called respectively the pleroma and the kenoma, 
the ‘fulness’ and the ‘void’. From a Christian point of view these may be 
described as the kingdoms of light and of darkness respectively. From 
the side of Platonism, they are the regions of real and of phenomenal 
existences—the world of eternal archetypes or ideas, and the world of 
material and sensible things. The identification of these two antitheses 
was rendered easy for the Gnostic; because with him knowledge was one 
with morality and with salvation, and because also matter was absolutely 
bound up with evil. It is difficult to say whether the Platonism or the 
Christianity predominates in the Valentinian theology; but the former at 
all events is especially prominent in their conception of the relations 
between the pleroma and the kenoma. 

The pleroma is the abode of the ons, who are thirty in number. 
These Aions are successive emanations, of which the first pair sprang im- 
mediately from the preexistent Bythus or Depth. This Bythus is deity in 
itself, the absolute first principle, as the name suggests; the profound, 
unfathomable, limitless, of whom or of which nothing can be predicated 
and nothing known. Here again we have something like a local repre- 
sentation. The ons or emanations are plainly the attributes and energies 
of deity; they are, or they comprise, the eternal ideas or archetypes of the 
Platonic philosophy. In short they are deity relative, deity under self- 
imposed limitations, deity derived and divided up, as it were, so as at 
length to be conceivable. 

The topographical relation of Bythus to the derived Mons was dif- 
ferently given in different developments of the Valentinian teaching. 
According to one representation he was outside the pleroma; others 
placed his abode within it, but even in this case he was separated from the 
yest by Horus ("Opos), a personified Boundary or Fence, whom none, not 
even the Aions themselves, could pass!, The former mode of representa- 


1 For the various modes in which former type. There are good, though 


the relation of the absolute first prin- 
ciple to the pleroma was represented 
in different Valentinian schools, see 
Wrens: Tet, 1. 204, Te VES TNS, 5) eas 
1, etc. The main distinction is that 
stated in the text; the first principle 
was represented in two ways; either 
(i) as a monad, outside the pleroma ; 
or (ii) as a dyad, a syzygy, most com- 
monly under the designation of Budés 
and Xvy7, included within the pleroma 
but fenced off from the other eons. 
The Valentinian doctrine as given by 
Hippolytus (vi. 29 sq.) represents the 


perhaps not absolutely decisive, rea- 
sons for supposing that this father gives 
the original teaching of Valentinus 
himself. For (1) this very doctrine of 
the monad seems to point to an earlier 
date. It is the link which connects 
the system of Valentinus not only 
with Pythagoreanism to which (as 
Hippolytus points out) he was so 
largely indebted, but also with the 
teaching of the earlier heresiarch Ba- 
silides, whose first principle likewise 
was a monad, the absolute nothing, 
the non-existent God. The conception 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 267 


tion might be thought to accord better with the imagery, at the same time 
that it is more accurate if regarded as the embodiment of a philosophical 
conception. Nevertheless the latter was the favourite mode of delinea- 
tion; and it had at least this recommendation, that it combined in one all 
that is real, as opposed to all that is phenomenal. In this pleroma every 
existence which is suprasensual and therefore true has its abode. 

Separated from this celestial region by Horus, another Horus or Kenoma, 
Boundary, which, or who, like the former is impassable, lies the ‘kenoma’ the ree 
or ‘void’—the kingdom of this world, the region of matter and material ohana 
things, the land of shadow and darkness. Here is the empire of the 
Demiurge or Creator, who is not a celestial Aon at all, but was born in this 
very void over which he reigns. Here reside all those phenomenal, decep- 
tive, transitory things, of which the eternal counterparts are found only in 
the pleroma. 

It is in this antithesis that the Platonism of the Valentinian theory Platonism 
reaches its climax. All things are set off one against another in these two of this an- 
regions?: just as tithesis. 

The swan on still St Mary’s lake 
Floats double, swan and shadow. 


Not only have the thirty ons their terrestrial counterparts; but their 
subdivisions also are represented in this lower region. The kenoma too 
has its ogdoad, its decad, its dodecad, like the pleroma’. There is one 
Sophia in the supramundane region, and another in the mundane; there 
is one Christ who redeems the ons in the spiritual world, and a second 
Christ who redeems mankind, or rather a portion of mankind, in the 
sensible world. There is an Mon Man and another Mon Ecclesia in the 
celestial kingdom, the ideal counterparts of the Human Race and the 
Christian Church in the terrestrial. Even individual men and women, as 
we shall see presently, have their archetypes in this higher sphere of 
intelligible being. 


It seems most na- 


of the first principle as a dyad seems 
to have been a later, and not very 
happy, modification of the doctrine of 
the founder, being in fact an extension 
of the principle of syzygies which Va- 
lentinus with a truer philosophical con- 
ception had restricted to the derived 
essences. (2) The exposition of Hip- 
polytus throughout exhibits a system 
at once more consistent and more 
simple, than the luxuriant develop- 
ments of the later Valentinians, such 
as Ptolemzus and Marcus. (3) The 
sequence of his statement points to 
the same conclusion. He gives a con- 
secutive account of some one system, 
turning aside from time to time to 
notice the variations of different Va- 
lentinian schools from this standard 
and again resuming the main thread 


of his exposition, 
tural therefore that he should have 
taken the system of the founder as his 
basis. On the other hand Irenzus 
(i. r1. 1) states that Valentinus re- 
presented the first principle as a dyad 
("Appyros or BuOés, and Zey7): but 
there is no evidence that he had any 
direct or indirect knowledge of the 
writings of Valentinus himself, and 
his information was derived from the 
later disciples of the school, more 
especially from the Ptolemzans. 

a netie ds ae P ey Sse BT. aah gS) 
Mi bia, cil. 8. i—3, 3 T4. By dit. 25. G; 
7, etc. 

Shrew sel. a dehy oik BQey dle Tas! 3, 
Ui. )15. 3, 84.4 11. 20..5, ll. 90. 3, ete. 

3 Tren. isi Be "45 Ube ges 35 | COMP, 
Hippol. vi. 34. 


268 


The locali- 


sation of 
the plero- 


ma carried 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


The topographical conception of the pleroma moreover is carried out 
in the details of the imagery. The second Sophia, called also Achamoth, is 
the desire, the offspring, of her elder namesake, separated from her 


out in de- mother, cast out of the pleroma, and left ‘stranded’ in the void beyond}, 


tail. 


The con- 
nexion 
with St 
Paul’s use 
of theterm 
obscured, 


owing 
partly to 
the false 
antithesis 
Kevan 


being prevented from returning by the inexorable Horus who guards the 
frontier of the supramundane kingdom. The second Christ—a being com- 
pounded of elements contributed by all the Aions?—was sent down from the 
pleroma, first of all at the eve of creation to infuse something like order 
and to provide for a spiritual element in this lower world; and secondly, 
when He united Himself with the man Jesus for the sake of redeeming 
those who were capable of redemption®. At the end of all things Sophia 
Achamoth, and with her the spiritual portion of mankind, shall be redeemed 
and received up into the pleroma, while the psychical portion will be left 
outside to form another kingdom under the dominion of their father the 
Demiurge. This redemption and ascension of Achamoth (by a perversion of 
a scriptural image) was represented as her espousals with the Saviour, the 
second Christ; and the pleroma, the scene of this happy union, was called 
the bridal-chamber*. Indeed the localisation of the pleroma is as complete 
as language can make it. The constant repetition of the words ‘within’ 
and ‘without’, ‘above’ and ‘beneath’, in the development of this philoso- 
phical and religious myth still further impresses this local sense on the term), 

In this topographical representation the connexion of meaning in the 
word pleroma as employed by St Paul and by Valentinus respectively 
seems at first sight to be entirely lost. When we read of the contrast be- 
tween the pleroma and the kenoma, the fulness and the void, we are 
naturally reminded of the plenum and the vacuum of physical specula- 
tions. The sense of pleroma, as expressing completeness and so denoting 
the aggregate or totality of the Divine powers, seems altogether to have 
disappeared. But in fact this antithesis of xévwua was, so far as we can 
make out, a mere afterthought, and appears to have been borrowed, as 
Irenzeus states, from the physical theories of Democritus and Epicurus®, 
It would naturally suggest itself both because the opposition of mAjpns and 
kevos Was obvious, and because the word xévepa materially assisted the 
imagery as a description of the kingdom of waste and shadow. But in 


li. 7 daurdv éxévwoev; Clem, Alex. Exc. 


Theod. 35 (p. 978). 
4 Tren. i. 7. 1 Kal Todro elvar vup- 


1 Tren. i. 4. 1 Aéyoucw éy oxials 
[oxeds] cal Kevmaros rémos éxBeBpa- 
o@at x«.7.X. The Greek ms reads xal 


oxnvapatos, but the rendering of the 
early Latin translation ‘in umbrae 
[et?] vacuitatis locis’ leaves no doubt 
about the word in the original text. 
Tertullian says of this Achamoth (adv. 
Valent. 14) ‘explosa est in loca lu- 
minis aliena...in vacuum atque inane 
Ulud Epicuri’. See note 6. 

2 Tren. i. 2. 6, Hippol. vi. 32. 

3 They quoted, as referring to this 
descent of the second Christ into the 
kenoma, the words of St Paul, Phil, 


dlov Kat viudnv, vuudadva dé Td wap 
mAjpwyna: comp. Hippol. vi. 34 6 vup- 
dlos airys. 

5 This language is so frequent that 
special references are needless. In 
Tren. ii. 5. 3 we have a still stronger 
expression, ‘in ventre pleromatis’. 

6 Tren. ii. r4. 3 ‘Umbram autem et 
vacuum ipsorum a Democrito et Epi- 
curo sumentes sibimetipsis aptaverunt, 
quum illi primum multum sermonem 
fecorint de vacuo et de atomis’, 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


itself it is a false antithesis. 


269 


The true antithesis appears in another, and borrowed 


probably an earlier, term used to describe the mundane kingdom. In this from phy- 
earlier representation, which there is good reason for ascribing to Valen- 
tinus himself, it is called not xévwpa ‘the void’, but vorépnua ‘the defi- 


ciency, incompleteness’}, 


sical phi- 


losophers; 
but re- 
Moreover the common phraseology of the appears in 


Valentinian schools shows that the idea suggested by this opposition to their com- 
xévopa was not the original idea of the term. They speak of rd wAnpopa 
TOY aidvey, TO Tay TAnPopa Tay aiwvwr, ‘the whole aggregate of the 
ions’?. And this (making allowance for the personification of the ons) 
corresponds exactly to its use in St Paul. 

Again the teaching of the Valentinian schools supplies other uses The origi- 
which serve to illustrate its meaning. Not only does the supramundane 2a! mean- 
kingdom as a whole bear this name, but each separate Aion, of which that 


kingdom is the aggregation, is likewise called a pleroma’. 


This designa- 


tion is given to an Aton, because it is the fulness, the perfection, of which 
its mundane counterpart is only a shadowy and defective copy. Nor does 


the narrowing of the term stop here. 


There likewise dwells in this higher 


region a pleroma, or eternal archetype, not only of every comprehensive 
mundane power, but of each individual man; and to wed himself with this 
heavenly partner, this Divine ideal of himself, must be the study of his life. Interpre- 
The profound moral significance which underlies the exaggerated Plato- tation of 
nism and perverse exegesis of this conception will be at once apparent. 
But the manner in which the theory was carried out is curiously- illus- 
trated by the commentary of the Valentinian Heracleon on our Lord’s 
discourse with the Samaritan woman*. This woman, such is his explana- 


ce 


1 Hippol. vi. 31 xadeirae dé dpos pev 
curos bre adoplgec amd Tod mAnpwparos 
diw 7d borépnua’ petoxeds 5é OTe pcré- 
xet Kal TOU VoTepjparos (i.e. as standing 
between the wAjpwua and vordpynua): 
oraupds 5é, re mémnyev axkwus kal duera- 
vojTws, ws wy SivacOat pndev Tod baTEp7- 
Laros katayevécBat éyyls TOv évTbs AN- 
pwyuarosaldéywy. Irenzeus represents the 
Marcosians as designating the Demi- 
urge kapmoés vorepimaros 1. 17. 2, 1. 19. 
I, i, praef. 1, ii. 1, 1 (comp. i. 14. 1). 
This was perhaps intended originally 
as an antithesis to the name of the 
Christ, who was xaprés mAnpdyaros. 
The Marcosians however apparently 
meant Sophia Achamoth by this toré- 
pnua. This transference from the 
whole to the part would be in strict 
accordance with their terminology: for 
as they called the supramundane xons 
mAnpwopara (Iren. i. 14. 2,5; quoted in 
Hippol. vi. 43, 46), so also by analogy 
they might designate the mundane 
powers vorepjyara (comp. Iren. i. 16. 
3). The term, as it occurs in the docu- 


ment used by Hippolytus, plainly de- 
notes the whole mundane region. 

Hippolytus does not use the word 
xévwua, though so common in Irenzus, 
This fact seems to point to the earlier 
date of the Valentinian document 
which he uses, and so to bear out the 
result arrived at in a previous note 
(p. 266) that we have here a work of 
Valentinus h-mself. The word toré- 
pnua appears also in Exc, Theod. 22 
(P. 974). 

2 e.g. Hippol. vi. 34, Iren. i. 2. 6. 
See especially Iren. ii. 7. 3 ‘Quoniam 
enim pleroma ipsorum triginta Aeones 
sunt, ipsi testantur ’. 

3 See the passages from Ireneus 
quoted above, note 1; comp. Exc. 
Theod. 32, 33 (p- 977). Similarly 
Aéyot is @ synonym for the Hons, 
duuvtuws TO Adyy, Exc. Theod. 25 (p. 
975): 

4 Heracleon in Orig. in Joann. xiii, 
Iv. p. 205 sq. The passages are collect- 
ed in Stieren’s Irenzus p. 9478q. See 
especially p. 950 oferar [6 ‘Hpaxdéwr] ris 


mon phra- 
seology. 


ing shown 
by other 
uses. 


John iv, 
17, 18. 


270 


Valenti- 
nians ac- 
cept St 
Paul and 
St John, 


and quote 
them in 
support of 
their 
views. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


tion, belongs to the spiritual portion of mankind. But she had had six! 
husbands, or in other words she had entangled herself with the material 
world, had defiled herself with sensuous things. The husband however, 
whom she now has, is not her husband ; herein she has spoken rightly: the 
Saviour in fact means ‘her partner from the pleroma’. Hence she is 
bidden to go and call him; that is, she must find ‘her pleroma, that 
coming to the Saviour with him (or it), she may be able to obtain from 
Him the power and the union and the combination with her pleroma’ (rip 
Svvapiv Kal THY Evwowy Kal THY avaKpacw THY mpos TO TANPa@pa avTfs). ‘For’, 
adds Heracleon, ‘ He did not speak of a mundane (koopixod) husband when 
He told her to call him, since He was not ignorant that she had no lawful 
husband’, 

Impossible as it seems to us to reconcile the Valentinian system with 
the teaching of the Apostles, the Valentinians themselves felt no such 
difficulty. They intended their philosophy not to supersede or contradict 
the Apostolic doctrine, but to supplement it and to explain it on philo- 
sophical principles. Hence the Canon of the Valentinians comprehended 
the Canon of Catholic Christianity in all its essential parts, though some 
Valentinian schools at all events supplemented it with Apocryphal wri- 
tings. More particularly the Gospel of St John and the Epistles to the 
Colossians and Ephesians were regarded with especial favour; and those 
passages which speak of the pleroma are quoted more than once in their 
writings to illustrate their teaching. By isolating a few words from the 
context and interpreting them wholly without reference to their setting, 
they had no difficulty in finding a confirmation of their views, where we see 
only an incongruity or even a contradiction. For instance, their second 
Christ—the redeemer of the spiritual element in the mundane world—was, 
as we saw, compacted of gifts contributed by all the Hons of the pleroma. 
Hence he was called ‘the common fruit of the pleroma’, ‘ the fruit of all the 
pleroma”’, ‘the most perfect beauty and constellation of the pleroma’’; hence 


Lapapelridos Tov NeySmevoy vd TOU cw- 
Thoos dvipa TO WAHpPwWma elvat auTAs, 
iva odbv éxelvw yevomévn mpos TOY TwT7pa 
kouloecOar map avrod ri dvvauw Kal 
Thy évwow Kal Thy avdxpacw Thy mpds 
TO TAApwWKA avTHS Suynby’ od yap 
mept avdpds, pyol, KoouiKoU Edeyer...... 
Aéyw airG Tov cwrhpa eipneeva, Bid- 
vynodv cou Tov dvdpa Kal édOé évOdde* On- 
Aobvra Tov dd TOU TANPHMaTOS aU- 
¢tuvyov. Lower down Heracleon says 
qv aiths 6 dvip év TG Aléu, By this 
last expression I suppose he means 
that the great zon Man of the Ogdoad, 
the eternal archetype of mankind, com- 
prises in itself archetypes correspond- 
ing to each individual man and woman, 
not indeed of the whole human race 
(for the Valentinian would exclude the 
psychical and carnal portion from any 


participation in this higher region) 
but of the spiritual portion thereof. 

1 Origen expressly states that Hera- 
cleon read é& for révre. The number 
Six was supposed to symbolize the 
material creature; see Heracleon on 
‘the forty and six years’ of John ii. 
20 (Stieren p. 947). There is no reason 
to think that Heracleon falsified the 
text here; he appears to have found 
this various reading already in his 
copy. 

2 The expression is 6 Kowvds Tod +\y- 
pwparos kapros in Hippolytus vi. 32, 
34, 30 (Pp. 190, 191, 192, 193, 196). In 
Trenzus i. 8. 5 it is kapros mavrés Tod 
TANPYMATOS. 

3 Tren. i. 2. 6 TeNecdrarov KddXos TE 
kal dorpov Tod mAnpwuaros. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. a71 
a'so he was designated ‘ All’ (way) and ‘All things’ (aavra)'. Accordingly, 
to this second Christ, not to the first, they applied these texts; Col. iii. 11 
‘And He is all things’, Rom. xi. 36 ‘ All things are unto Him and from Him 
are all things’, Col. ii. 9 ‘In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead’, 
Ephes. i. 10 ‘To gather together in one all things in Christ through God’’. 
So too they styled him EvSdxnros, with a reference to Col. i. 19, because 
‘all the pleroma was pleased through Him to glorify the Father’*, And 
inasmuch as this second Christ was according to the Valentinian theory 
instrumental in the creation of the mundane powers, they quoted, or rather 
misquoted, as referring to this participation in the work of the Demiurge, 
the passage Col. i. 16 ‘In Him were created all things, visible and invisible, 
thrones, deities, dominions’*, Indeed it seems clear that these adaptations 
were not always afterthoughts, but that in several instances at least their 
nomenclature was originally chosen for the sake of fitting the theory to 
isolated phrases and expressions in the Apostolic writings, however much 
it might conflict with the Apostolic doctrine in its main lines®. 

The heretics called Docetae by Hippolytus have no connexion with Use of the 
docetism, as it is generally understood, i.e. the tenet that Christ’s body term by 
was not real flesh and blood, but merely a phantom body. Their views on a oes 
this point, as represented by this father, are wholly different®. Of their ° 
system generally nothing need be said here, except that it is largely satu- 
rated with Valentinian ideas and phrases. From the Valentinians they 
evidently borrowed their conception of the pleroma, by which they under- 
stood the aggregate, or (as localised) the abode, of the Alons. With them, 
as with the Valentinians, the Saviour is the common product of all the 
fons’; and in speaking of him they echo a common Valentinian phrase 
‘the pleroma of the entire Avons’$, 

The Ophite heresy, Proteus-like, assumes so many various forms, that and by 
the skill of critics has been taxed to the utmost to bind it with cords two Ophite 
and extract its story from it. It appears however from the notices of 8°: 
Hippolytus, that the term pleroma was used in a definite theological sense 
by at least two branches of the sect, whom he calls Naassenes and Peratae. 

Of the Naassenes Hippolytus tells us that among other images bor- (i) Naas- 
rowed from the Christian and Jewish Scriptures, as well as from heathen senes. 
poetry, they described the region of true knowledge—their kingdom of 


2 drew: 596,01. 35 4. 

2 Tren. i. 3. 4. The passages are 
given in the text as they are quoted by 
Ireneus from the Valentinians, Three 
out of the four are incorrect. 

‘3 Tren. i. 12. 4; comp. Exc. Theod. 


dopara, Opsvot, kupLornres, BactAelat, Oed- 
Tyres, AetTovpylat’ 616 Kal d Qeos adroy 
UrepUpwoer k.T.r. (the last words being 
taken from Phil. ii. 9 sq.). 

5 Thus they interpreted Ephes. iit. 


21 els mdcas Tas yeveds TOU alwvos TwY 


31 (p. 977) ef 6 KaTe\Ody ebdoxia Tod 
Srou qv" &v adr@ yap wav TO TAI pwpa Av 
TWMATLKOS. 

4 Tren. i. 4. 5 darws ev aire Ta rdvra 
KTiOy, TH dpard Kal Ta ddpara, Opdvor, 
Gebrynres, Kupidrnres, Where the mis- 
quotation is remarkable. In Eze. 
Theod. 43 (p.979) the words run rdvra 
yap év air@ éxtlaOy Ta opard Kal Tao 


aljvwy as referring to their generated 
eons: Tren. i. 3. 1. Similar is the 
use which they made of expressions in 
the opening chapter of St John, where 
they found their first Ogdoad described: 
ib. i. 8. 5. 

6 R. H. viii. ro (p. 267). 

7 id. viii. g. 

8 ib. viii. 10 (p. 266). 


272 


(ii)Peratae. 


Their 
theology 


and corre- 
sponding 
applica- 
tion of 
TAHPWLte 


Pistis 
Sophia. 


Frequent 
use of the 
term, 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


heaven, which was entered by initiation into their mysteries—as the Jand 
flowing with milk and honey, ‘which when the perfect (the true Gnostics, 
the fully initiated) have tasted, they are freed from subjection to kings (aBa- 
giAevrous) and partake of the pleroma. Here is a plain allusion to Joh. 
i. 16. ‘This’, the anonymous Naassene writer goes on to say, ‘is the ple- 
roma, through which all created things coming into being are produced 
and fulfilled (rexAnpwra) from the Uncreated’?, Here again, as in the 
Valentinian system, the conception of the pleroma is strongly tinged with 
Platonism. The pleroma is the region of ideas, of archetypes, which 
intervenes between the author of creation and the material world, and 
communicates their specific forms to the phcnomenal existences of the 
latter. 

The theology of the second Ophite sect, the Peratae, as described by 
Hippolytus, is a strange phenomenon. They divided the universe into 
three regions, the uncreate, the self-create, and the created. Again the 
middle region may be said to correspond roughly to the Platonic kingdom 
of ideas. But their conception of deity is entirely their own. They 
postulate three of every being; three Gods, three Words, three Minds 
(i.e. as we may suppose, three Spirits), three Men. Thus there is a God 
for each region, just as there isa Man. In full accordance with this per- 
verse and abnormal theology is their application of St Paul’s language. 
Their Christ has three natures, belonging to these three kingdoms respec- 
tively ; and this completeness of His being is implied by St Paul in Col. 
i. 19, ii. 9, which passages are combined in their loose quotation or para- 
phrase, ‘ All the pleroma was pleased to dwell in him bodily, and there is 
in him all the godhead’, i.e. (as Hippolytus adds in explanation) ‘of this 
their triple division (ris odtw Siypnyévns tpiddos)’*. This application is 
altogether arbitrary, having no relation whatever to the theological mean- 
ing of the term in St Paul. It is also an entire departure from the 
conception of the Cerinthians, Valentinians, and Naassenes, in which this 
meaning, however obscured, was not altogether lost. These three heresies 
took a horizontal section of the universe, so to speak, and applied the 
term as coextensive with the supramundane stratum. The Peratae on the 
other hand divided it vertically, and the pleroma, in their interpretation of 
the text, denoted the whole extent of this vertical section. There is 
nothing in common between the two applications beyond the fundamental 
meaning of the word, ‘completeness, totality’. 

The extant Gnostic work, called Pistis Sophia, was attributed at one 
time on insufficient grounds to Valentinus. It appears however to 
exhibit a late development of Ophitism’, far more Christian and less 
heathen in its character than those already considered. In this work the 
word pleroma occurs with tolerable frequency; but its meaning is not 
easily fixed. arly in the treatise it is said that the disciples supposed a 
certain ‘mystery’, of which Jesus spoke, to be ‘the end of all the ends’ 
and ‘the head (xedadyv) of the Universe’ and ‘the whole pleroma’’. 
Here we seem to have an allusion to the Platonic kingdom of ideas, 


i Rh. Hv. 8. aR. He Ne 12 Tiibingen 1854, p. 185. 
* See Kostlin in Theolog. Jahrb. 4 Distis Sophia p. 3 sq. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 273 


i.e. of intelligible being, of absolute truth, as reproduced in the Valenti- 
nian pleroma. And the word is used sometimes in connexion with the 
completeness of revelation or the perfection of knowledge. Thus our 
Lord is represented as saying to His disciples, ‘I will tell you the whole 
mystery and the whole pleroma, and I will conceal nothing from you 
from this hour; and in perfection will I perfect you in every pleroma and 
in every perfection and in every mystery, which things are the perfection of 
all the perfections and the pleroma of all the pleromas’. Elsewhere 
however Mary, to whom Jesus is represented as making some of His 
chief revelations, is thus addressed by Him; ‘Blessed art thou above 
(mapa) all women that are on the earth, for thou shalt be pleroma of all 
the pleromas and perfection of all the perfections’*, where the word must 
be used in a more general sense. 

One heresy still remains to be noticed in connexion with this word. Monoimus 
Hippolytus has preserved an account of the teaching of Monoimus the the Ara- 
Arabian, of whom previously to the discovery of this father’s treatise we ""+ 
knew little more than the name. In this strange form of heresy the 
absolute first principle is the uncreate, imperishable, eternal Man. I need 
not stop to enquire what this statement means. It is sufficient for the 
present purpose to add that this eternal Man is symbolized by the letter 1, 
the ‘one iota’, the ‘one tittle’ of the Gospel’; and this 1, as representing 
the number ten, includes in itself all the units from one to nine. ‘This’, 
added Monoimus, ‘is (meant by) the saying (of scripture) All the ple- 
roma was pleased to dwell upon the Son of Man bodily’*. Here the 
original idea of the word as denoting completeness, totality, is still 
preserved. 


1 ib. p. 15 8q.: comp. pp. 4, 60, 75, parently in the sense of ‘comple- 


187, 275. tion’. 
2 ib. p. 28 sq.: comp. p. 56. Onp. 7 3 Matt. v. 18. 
mrApwua is opposed to dpx7, ap- « R. A. vill. 13: 


EOL: 18 


274 


Different 
theories 
classified. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


The Epistle from Laodicea’. 


Tue different opinions respecting the epistle thus designated by 
St Paul, which have been held in ancient or modern times, will be seen 


from the following table; 


1. An Epistle written by the Laodiceans; to 


(a) St Paul; 
(8) Epaphras ; 
(y) Colossee. 


i) 


(a) 1 Timothy; 

(8) 1 Thessalonians; 
(y) 2 Thessalonians; 
(8) Galatians. 


An Epistle written by St Paul from Laodicea. 


3. An Epistle addressed to the Laodiceans by 
(a) St John (the First Epistle) ; 
(6) Some companion of St Paul (Epaphras or Luke) ; 


(c) St Paul himself; 


(i) A lost Epistle. 
(ii) One of the Canonical Epistles. 
(a) Hebrews; 
(8) Philemon; 
(y) Ephesians. 
(iii) The Apocryphal Epistle. 
In this maze of conflicting hypotheses we might perhaps be tempted to 


despair of finding our way and give up the search as hopeless. Yet I ven- 
ture to think that the true identification of the epistle in question is not, 
or at least ought not to be, doubtful. 


Ee 
epistle 


written by commentators. 
the Laodi- 


ceans. 


Advocates 
of this 
theory. 


ject? 


I. The opinion that the epistle was addressed by the Laodiceans to 
St.Paul, and not conversely, found much support in the age of the Greek 


It is mentioned by St Chrysostom as held by ‘some per- 


sons’, though he himself does not pronounce a definite opinion on the sub- 


It is eagerly advocated by Theodore of Mopsuestia. He supposes 


that the letter of the Laodiceans contained some reflexions on the Colos- 
sian Church, and that St Paul thought it good for the Colossians to hear 


1 The work of Anger, Ueber den 
Laodicenerbrief (Leipzig 1843), is very 
complete. He enumerates and dis- 
cusses very thoroughly the opinions 
of his predecessors, omitting hardly 
anything relating to the literature of 
the subject which was accessible at 
the time when he wrote. His expo- 
sition of his own view, though not less 


elaborate, is less satisfactory. A later 
monograph by A. Sartori, Ueber den 
Laodicenserbriej (Lubeck 1853),is much 
slighter and contributes nothing new. 

2 ad loc. twés A€éyovow sre odxl Thy 
Ilavdov wpos avrovs drecrahuévnv, adda 
Thy wap avrow Ilavdw ov yap elre rv 
mpos Aaodtxéas adda Thy éx Aaod- 
Kelas. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


what their neighbours said of them’. Theodoret, though not mentioning 
Theodore by name, follows in his footsteps» The same opinion is also 
expressed in a note ascribed to Photius in the (cumenian Catena. 
This view seems to have been very widely entertained in ancient 
times. It possibly underlies the Latin Version ‘ea que Laodicensium 
est’?; it is distinctly expressed in the rendering of the Peshito, ‘that 
which was written by the Laodiceans’4, At a more recent date too it 
found great favour. It was adopted on the one hand by Calvin’ and 
Beza® and Davenant and Lightfoot’, on the other by Baronius® and 
& Lapide and Estius, besides other very considerable names®, Latterly 
its popularity has declined, but it has secured the support of one or two 
commentators even in the present century. 


The underlying motive of this interpretation was to withdraw the sup- Reasons 


port which the apocryphal epistle seemed to derive from this reference, fF it. 


without being obliged at the same time to postulate a lost epistle of St 
Paul. The critical argument adduced in its support was the form of ex- 


pression, rv éx Aaodiukeias. The whole context however points to a different Objections 


explanation. The Colossian and Laodicean Epistles are obviously regarded to it. 


as in some sense companion epistles, of which the Apostle directs an inter- 
change between the two churches. And again, if the letter in question had 


1 Rab. Maur. Op. vi. p. 540 (Migne) 
‘Non quia ad Laodicenses scribit. 
Unde quidam falsam epistolam ad 
Laodicenses ex nomine beati Pauli 
confingendam esse existimaverunt ; 
nec enim erat vera epistola. Aistima- 
verunt autem quidam illam esse, que 
in hoe loco est significata. Apostolus 
vero non [ad] Laodicenses dicit sed 
ex Laodicea; quam illi scripserunt 
ad apostolum, in quam aliqua repre- 
hensionis digna inferebantur, quam 
etiam hac de causa jussit apud eos 
legi, ut ipsi reprehendant seipsos 
discentes que de ipsis erant dicta 
etc.’ (see Spic. Solesm. 1. p. 133). 

2 After repeating the argument 
based on the expression tiv éx Aaod.- 
kelas, Theodoret says eixds 5¢ avrovs 7 
Ta &v Kodacoals yevdueva alridcacbat 
Ta avtTa TovUTos vevoonKévat. 

% This however may be questioned. 
On the other hand Beza (ad loc.), 
Whitaker (Disputation on Scripture pp. 
108, 303, 468 sq., 526, 531, Parker 
Society’s ed.), and others, who explain 
the passage in this way, urge that it is 
required by the Greek é« Aaodixelas, 
and complain that the other interpre- 
tation depends on the erroneous Latin 
rendering. 

4 Or, ‘that which was written from 


Laodicea.’ The difference depends on 


the vocalisation of rant which 


may be either (1) ‘Laodicea,’ as in vv. 
13, 15, or (2) ‘the Laodiceans,’ as in 
the previous clause in this same ver. 
16. 

5 Calvin is very positive; ‘Bis 
hallucinati sunt qui Paulum arbi- 
trati sunt ad Laodicenses scripsisse. 
Non dubito quin epistola fuerit ad 
Paulum missa ... Impostura autem 
nimis crassa fuit, quod nebulo nescio 
quis hoc pretextu epistolam supponere 
ausus est adeo insulsam, ut nihil 
a Pauli spiritu magis alienum fingi 
queat.’ The last sentence reveals the 
motive which unconsciously led so 
many to adopt this unnatural intev- 
pretation of St Paul’s language. 

6 ad loc. ‘Multo feedius errarunt 
qui ex hoc loco suspicati sunt quan- 
dam fuisse epistolam Pauli ad Lao- 
dicenses ...... quum potius significet 
Paulus epistolam aliquam ad se 
missam Laodicea, aut potius qua re- 
sponsuri essent Laodicenses Colos- 
sensibus.’ 

7 Works 11. p. 326. 

8 Ann. Eccl. 8. a. 60, § xiil. 

9 e.g. Tillemont Mem. Eccl. 1. p- 
576. 


1S—2 


276 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 
been written by the Laodiceans to St Paul, why should he enjoin the Colos- 
sians to get it from Laodicea? How could he assume that a copy had been 
kept by the Laodiceans; or, if kept, would be given up when required? In- 
deed the difficulties in this hypothesis are so great, that nothing but the 
most imperious requirements of the Greek language would justify its 
acceptance. But the expression in the original makes no such demand. 
It is equally competent for us to explain rv é« Aaodieias either ‘the 
letter written from Laodicea’, or ‘the letter to be procured from Laodi- 
cea’, as the context may suggest. The latter accords at least as well with 
Greek usage as the former?. 
Wows The vast majority of those who interpret the expression in this way 
respecting assume that the letter was written to (a) St Paul. The modifications of 
the person this view, which suppose it addressed to some one else, need hardly be 
addressed. aonsidered. The theory for instance, which addresses it to (8) Epaphras?, 
removes none of the objections brought against the simpler hypothesis. 
Another opinion, which takes (y) the Colossians themselves to have been 
the recipients, does indeed dispose of one difficulty, the necessity of 
assuming a copy kept by the Laodiceans, but it is even more irreconcile- 
able with the language of the context. Why then should St Paul so stu- 
diously charge them to see that they read it? Why above all should he 
say kat vueis, ‘ye also’, when they were the only persons who would read it 
as a matter of course ? 
2. Aletter 2: A second class of identifications rests on the supposition that it 
was a letter written from Laodicea, though not by the Laodiceans them- 


written 
from Lao- selves. The considerations which recommend this hypothesis for accept- 
ay et ance are the same as in the last case. It withdraws all support from the 
i apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, and it refrains from postulating a 
lost Apostolic epistle. It is not exposed to all the objections of the other 
theory, but it introduces new difficulties still more serious. Here a choice 
1 Timothy. of several epistles is offered to us. (a) The First Epistle to Timothy. 


This view is distinctly maintained by John Damascene‘ and by Theophy- 
lact®; but it took its rise much earlier. It appears in the margin of the 
Philoxenian Syriac®, and it seems to have suggested the subscriptions 
found in many authorities at the close of that epistle. The words éypady 
aro Aaodixeias are found in AKL 47 etc., and many of these define the 
place meant by the addition jris éort pntpomodis Ppvyias ths Tlakarcavis. 
A similar note is found in some Latin mss. It is quite possible that this 
subscription was prior to the theory respecting the interpretation of Col. 
iv. 16, and gave rise to it; but the converse is more probable, and in some 


1 See the note on iv. 16. 

2 e.g. Storr Opuse. 11. p. 124 sq. 

3 So for instance Corn. 4 Lapide, as 
an alternative, ‘vel certe ad ipsos 
Colossenses, ut vult Theodor.’; but I 
do not find anything of the kind in 
Theodoret. This view also commends 
itself to Beza. 

* Op. 11. p. 214 (ed. Lequien) ri 
mpos Tibbeov mpuirnv réyer. But he 
adds rwes gacly 8re ovxt rhv Tavdou 


mpos auvrovs émecrahpévny...d\d\a Tip 
map avrav Ilavhw éx Aaodixelas ypa- 
peioav. 

5 ad loc. rls 62 qv 7% éx Aaodtxelas; 
 wpos Tipb0eov xrpwrn attrn ydp éx 
Aaodtxelas éypdgdn. twes 6€ ghacw sre 
qv of Aaodixe?s Tatyw émréoreidav, GAN’ 
ov olda rh dv éxelyns e5ec avdrots mpos 
Bertiwoww. 

8 ad loc. ‘Propter eam qu est ad 
Timotheum dixit.’ 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Mss (a** 74) the bearing of this subscription on Col. iy. 16 is emphasized, 
iSod 7 kai 7 €k Aaodixeias. This identification has not been altogether 


277 


without support in later times!. (8) The First Epistle to the Thessalo- 1 Thessa- 
nians. <A final colophon in the Philoxenian Syriac asserts that it was lonians. 


‘written from Laodicea’: and the same is stated in a later hand of d, 
‘scribens a Laodicea. Again an Ethiopic ms, though giving Athens as 
the place of writing, adds that it was ‘sent with Timotheus, Tychicus, and 
Onesimus*” This identification was perhaps suggested by the fact that 
1 Thessalonians follows next after Colossians in the common order of St 


Paul’s Epistles. (y) The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, In the 2 Thessa- 
Peshito (as given by Schaaf*) there is a final colophon stating that this Jonians. 


epistle ‘was written from Laodicea of Pisidia and was sent by the hand of 
Tychicus’’ Though the addition of Pisidia wrongly defines the place as 
Laodicea Combusta, instead of Laodicea ad Lycum, yet the mention of 
the messenger’s name shows plainly that the identification with the missing 
epistle of Col. iv. 16 was contemplated. So too the Memphitic ‘ per Silva- 
num et Tychicum’, and a Latin prologue ‘per Titum et Onesimum? 
Again, an Ethiopic Ms points to the same identification, though strangely 
confused in its statements. In the superscription we are told that this 
epistle was written when the Apostle was at Laodicea, but in the sub- 
scription that it ‘was written at Athens to Laodicea and sent by Tychicus’; 
while the prolegomena state that it was written and left at Laodicea, and 
that afterwards, when St Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians from 
Rome, he gave directions that it should be transmitted to the Thessalonians 


by the Colossians’ (6) The Epistle to the Galatians’, This might have Galatians, 


been chosen, partly because it affords no internal data for deciding where 
it was written, partly because like the Colossian Epistle it is directed 
against a form of Judaism, and the advocates of this hypothesis might not 
be careful to distinguish the two types, though very distinct in themselves. 
I find no support for it in the subscriptions, except the notice ‘per Tychi- 
cum’ in some Slavonic Mss. 


The special difficulties attending this class of solutions are manifold. Objections 
(1) It does not appear that St Paul had ever been at Laodicea when he to these 
wrote the letter to the Colossians. (2) All the epistles thus singled out ®!tions. 


are separated from the Colossian letter by an interval of some years at 
least. (3) In every case they can with a high degree of probability be 
shown to have been written elsewhere than at Laodicea. Indeed, as 
St Paul had been long a prisoner either at Czesarea or at Rome, when 
he wrote to Colossze, he could not have despatched a letter recently from 
Laodicea. 


1 It is adopted by Erasmus in his 
paraphrase; ‘vicissim vos legatis e- 
pistolam que Timotheo scripta fuit 
ex Laodicensium urbe’: but in his 
commentary he does not commit him- 
self toit. For other names see Anger 
p. 17, note k. 

* Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. AEthiop. 
p23. 


3 In the editio princeps (Vienna 
1555) the latter part of this colophon, 
‘and was sent by the hand of Tychi- 
cus,’ is wanting. 

4 Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. thiop. 


p- 23- ; 
5 Bloch, quoted in Anger p. 17, 
note 1, 


278 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 
3. Thus we are thrown back on some form of the solution which 


3. A letter 
And here we may at once 


tothe Lao- makes it a letter written to the Laodiceans. 


ae b reject the hypothesis that the writer was (a) St John’. The First Epistle 
(a) St Y of St John, which has been selected, was written (as is allowed on all hands) 
John, much later than this date. Nor again does St Paul’s language favour 


(6) A com- the alternative, which others have maintained, that the letter in question 
DF aad. was written by (5) one of St Paul’s companions, e.g. Epaphras or Luke”. 
(c) StPaul, The writer must therefore have been (c) St Paul himself. 

On this assumption three alternatives offer themselves. 

(i) We may suppose that the epistle in question has been lost. It has 
been pointed out elsewhere that the Apostle must have written many letters 
which are not preserved in our Canon®, Thas there is no @ priori ob- 
jection to this solution; and, being easy and obvious in itself, it has found 
common support in recent times. If therefore we had no positive reasons 
for identifying the Laodicean letter with one of the extant epistles of our 
Canon, we might at once close with this account of the matter. But 
such reasons do exist. And moreover, as we are obliged to suppose that 
at least three letters—the Epistles to the Colossians, to the Ephesians, 
and to Philemon—were despatched by St Paul to Asia Minor at the 
same time, it is best not to postulate a fourth, unless we are obliged to 
do so. 


(i) A lost 
letter. 


(ii) A Ca- (ii) But, if it was not a lost letter, with which of the Canonical 
nonical Epistles of St Paul can we identify it with most probability? Was it 
epistle. (a) The Epistle to the Hebrews ? The supporters of this hypothesis are 
(a) He- 1 : : Seer es re . 
beowel able to produce ancient evidence of a certain kind, though noé such as 
Philas- carries any real weight. Philastrius, writing about the close of the fourth 
trius. century, says that some persons ascribed the authorship of the Epistle to 


the Hebrews to Luke the Evangelist, and adds that it was asserted (appa- 
rently by these same persons, though this is not quite clear) to have been 
written to the Laodiceans*. Again in the Greeco-Latin ms G of St Paul’s 


1 A conjecture of Lightfoot (Works 
11. pp. 326, 339, London 1684), but he 
does not lay much stress on it. He 
offers it ‘rather then conceive that any 
epistle of Paul is lost.’ See also 
Anger p. 17, note m. 


Hebreos interdum. Et in ea quia 
rhetorice scripsit, sermone plausibili, 
inde non putant esse ejusdem apostoli; 
et quia factum Christum dicit in ea 
[Heb. iii. 2], inde non legitur; de 
penitentia autem [Heb. vi. 4, x. 26] 


2 Baumgarten Comm. ad loc., quoted 
by Anger p. 25, note g. 

3 Philippians p. 136 sq. 

4 Her. \xxxix ‘Sunt alii quoque 
qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebreos non 
adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut 
Barnabe esse apostoli aut Clementis 
de urbe Roma episcopi; alii autem 
Luce evangelists aiunt epistolam 
etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam. Et 
quia addiderunt in ea quedam non 
bene sentientes, inde non legitur in 
ecclesia; et si legitur a quibusdam, 
non tamen in ecclesia legitur populo, 
nisi tredecim epistola ipsius, et ad 


propter Novatianos «que. Cum ergo 
factum dicit Christum, corpore, non 
divinitate, dicit factum, cum doceat 
ibidem quod divine sit et paterns 
substantia filius, Qui est splendor 
glorig, inquit, et imago substantie 
ejus [Heb. i. 3]’ ete. Oehler punc- 
tuates the sentence with which we 
are concerned thus: ‘alii autem Luca 
evangeliste. Aiunt epistolam etiam 
ad Laodicenses scriptam,’ and in his 
note he adds ‘videlicet Pauli esse 
apostoli” Thus he supposes the 
clause to refer to the apocryphal 
Epistle to the Laodiceans: and Fa- 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 279 


Epistles, the Codex Boernerianus, probably written in the ninth century, Supposed 
after the Epistle to Philemon, which breaks off abruptly at ver. 20, a testimony 
vacant space is left, as if for the conclusion of this epistle: and then follows Gea, 
a iresh title 
ad _laudicenses incipit epistola 

Tpoc AdOYAAKHCAC = APXETAI €TTICTOAH 
This is evidently intended as the heading to another epistle. No other 
epistle however succeeds, but the leaf containing this title is followed by 
several leaves, which were originally left blank, but were filled at a later 
date with extraneous matter. What then was this Epistle to the Laodi- 
ceans, which was intended to follow, but which the scribe was prevented 
from transcribing? As the Epistle to the Hebrews is not found in this 
Ms, and as in the common order of the Pauline Epistles it would follow 
the Epistle to Philemon, the title has frequently been supposed to refer to 
it. This opinion however does not appear at all probable. Anger’ in- 
deed argues in its favour on the ground that in the companion ms Ff’, the 
Codex Augiensis, which (so far as regards the Greek text) must have been 
derived immediately from the same archetype’, the Epistle to the Hebrews 
does really follow. But what are the facts? It is plain that the Greek Relation 
texts of G and F came from the same original: but it is equally plain that of G-. to F. 
the two scribes had different Latin texts before them—that of G being the 
Old Latin, and that of F Jerome’s revised Vulgate. No argument there- 
fore derived from the Latin text holds good for the Greek. But the 
phenomena of both ss alike? show that the Greek text of their common 
archetype ended abruptly at Philem. 20 (probably owing to the loss of the 
final leaves of the volume). The two scribes therefore were left severally 
to the rescurces of their respective Latin mss. The scribe of F, whose 
Greek and Latin texts are in parallel columns, concluded the Epistle to 
Philemon in Latin, though he could not match it with its proper Greek ; 
and after this he added the Epistle to the Hebrews in Latin, no longer 
however leaving a blank column, as he had done for the last few verses of 
Philemon. On the other hand the Latin text in G is interlinear, the Latin 


bricius explains the notice similarly. 
Such a reference however would be 
quite out of place here. The whole 
paragraph before and after is taken 
up with discussing the Epistle to 
the Hebrews; and the interposition 
of just six words, referring to a 
wholly different matter, is inconceiy- 
able. We must therefore punctuate 
either ‘alii autem Luc evangelistz 
aiunt epistolam, etiam ad Laodi- 
censes scriptam’, or ‘alii autem Luca 
evangelists aiunt; epistolam etiam 
ad Laodicenses scriptam.’ In either 
case it will mean that some persons 
supposed the Epistle to the Hebrews 
to have been written to the Laodi- 
ceans. 


1 Laodicenerbrief p. 29 sq. 

2 If indeed the Greek text of F was 
not copied immediately from G, as 
maintained by Dr Hort in the Journal 
of Philology 11. p. 67. The divergent 
phenomena of the two Latin texts 
seem to me unfavourable to this hypo- 
thesis; but it ought not to be hastily 
rejected. 

3 Volkmar, the editor of Credner’s 
Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Ka- 
non Pp. 299, With strange carelessness 
speaks of ‘the appearance (das Vor- 
kommen) of the Laodicean Epistle in 
both the Codices Augiensis and Boer- 
merianus which in other respects are 
closely allied.’ There is no mention 
of it in the Codex Augiensis. 


280 


The spu- 
rious Lao- 
dicean 
Epistle 
intended. 


This iden- 
tification 
unsatis- 
factory. 


(8) Phile- 


mon. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


words being written above the Greek to interpret them. When therefore 
the Greek text came to an end, the scribe’s work was done, for he could no 
longer interlineate. But he left a blank space for the remainder of Phile- 
mon, hoping doubtless hereafter to find a Greek ms from which he could 
fill it in; and he likewise gave the title of the epistle which he found next 
in his Latin copy, in Greék as well as in Latin. The Greek title however 
he had to supply for himself. This is clear from the form, which shows it 
to have been translated from the Latin by a person who had the very 
smallest knowledge of Greek. No Greek in the most barbarous age would 


have written AaoyAakHcac for AaoAiKeac or AaodIKHNOYC, The aoy is 
a Latin corruption au for ao, and the termination ac is a Latin’s notion of 


the Greek accusative. ‘hus the whole word is 4 reproduction of the Latin 
‘ Laudicenses,’ the en being represented as usual by the Greeky If so, 
we have only to ask what writing would probably appear as Epistola ad 
Laudicenses in a Latin copy; and to this question there can be only one 
answer. The apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans occurs frequently in 
the Latin Bibles, being found at least two or three centuries before the 
nus G was written. Though it does not usually follow the Epistle to 
Philemon, yet its place varies very considerably in different Latin copies, 
and an instance will be given below? where it actually occurs in this 
position. 

Thus beyond the notice in Philastrius there is no ancient support for 
the identification of the missing letter of Col. iv. 16 with the Hpistle 
to the Hebrews; and doubtless the persons to whom Philastrius alludes 
had no more authority for their opinion than their modern successors. 
Critical conjecture, not historical tradition, led them to this result. 
The theory therefore must stand or fall by its own merits, It has 
been maintained by one or two modern writers’, chiefly on the ground of 
some partial coincidences between the Epistles to the Hebrews and the 
Colossians; but the general character and purport of the two is wholly 
dissimilar, and they obviously deal with antagonists of a very different 
type. The insuperable difficulty of supposing that two epistles so unlike 
in style were written by the same person to the same neighbourhood at 
or about the same time would still remain, even though the Pauline 
authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews should be for a moment granted. 

(8) The Epistle to Philemon has been strongly advocated by Wieseler *, 


1 It is curious that this ms, which 


tained this view are mentioned by 
was written by an Irish scribe, should 


Anger, p.25,notef. It has since been 


give the same corrupt form, Laudac- 
for Laodac-, which we find in the 
Book of Armagh ; see below, p. 282. _ 

2 See p. 286. It occurs also in this 
position in the list of Aelfric (see below 
p- 362), where the order of the Pauline 
Epistles is ... Col., Hebr., 1, 2 Tim., 
Tit., Philem., Laod. 

3 See especially Schneckenburger 
Beitrige p. 153 8q.- 

4 Some earlier writers who main- 


more fully developed and more vigor- 
ously urged by Wieseler, first in a 
programme Commentat. de Epist. Lao- 
dicena quam vulgo perditam putant 
1844, and afterwards in his well-known 
work Chronol. des Apostol. Zeit. p. 
405 8q. It may therefore be iden- 
tified with his name. He speaks of it 
with much confidence as ‘scarcely 
open to a doubt,’ but he has not 
succeeded in convincing others, 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 281 


as the letter to which St Paul refers in this passage. For this identification 

it is necessary to establish two points; (1) that Philemon lived not at 
Colossae, but at Laodicea; and (2) that the letter is addressed not to a 

private individual, but to a whole church. For the first point there is 
something to be said. Though for reasons explained elsewhere the abode 

of Philemon himself appears to have been at Colossae, wherever Archippus 

may have resided, still two opinions may very fairly be held on this point. 

But Wieseler’s arguments entirely fail to establish his other position. The This epis- 
theme, the treatment, the whole tenour of the letter, mark it as private: and tle does 
the mere fact that the Apostle’s courtesy leads him to include in the open- nas ene wer 
: : Oe : : e condi- 
ing salutation the Christians who met at Philemon’s house is powerless to tions. 
change its character. Why should a letter, containing such intimate 
confidences, be read publicly in the Church, not only at Laodicea but at 

Colossze, by the express order of the Apostle? The tact and delicacy 

of the Apostle’s pleading for Onesimus would be nullified at one stroke 

by the demand for publication. 

(y) But may we not identify the letter in question with the Epistle to the (y) Ephe- 
Ephesians, which also is known to have been despatched at the same time ®!@2- 
with the Epistle to the Colossians? Unlike the Epistle to Philemon, it 
was addressed not to a private person but to a church or churches, If 
therefore it can be shown that the Laodiceans were the recipients, either 
alone or with others, we have found the object of our search. The argu- This is the 
ments in favour of this solution are reserved for the introduction to that true solu- 
epistle. Meanwhile it is sufficient to say that educated opinion is tending, aon 
though slowly, in this direction, and to express the belief that ulti- 
mately this view will be generally received”. 

(iii) Another wholly different identification remains to be mentioned. (iii) The 
It was neither a lost epistle nor a Canonical epistle, thought some, but extant un- 
the writing which is extant under the title of the ‘Epistle to the Laodi- Parra 
ceans, though not generally received by the Church. Of the various the Laodi- 
opinions held respecting this apocryphal ietter I shall have to speak ceans. 
presently. It is sufficient here to say that the advocates of its genuineness 
fall into two classes.‘ Either they assign to it a place in the Canon with 
the other Epistles of St Paul, or they acquiesce in its exclusion, holding 
that the Church has authority to pronounce for or against the canonicity 
even of Apostolic writings. - 


The apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans is a cento of Pauline General 
phrases strung together without any definite connexion or any clear object. Character 
They are taken chiefly from the Epistle to the Philippians, but here and © bod 
there one is borrowed elsewhere, e.g. from the Epistle to the Galatians. epistle, 
Of course it closes with an injunction to the Laodiceans to exchange 
epistles with the Colossians. The Apostle’s injunction in Ool. iv. 16 
suggested the forgery, and such currency as it ever attained was due to 
the support which that passage was supposed to give to it. Unlike most 
forgeries, it had no ulterior aim. It was not framed to advance any 


1 See the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon. 
2 See above p. 37. 


282 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


particular opinions, whether heterodox or orthodox. It has no doctrinal 
peculiarities. Thus it is quite harmless, so far as falsity and stupidity 
combined can ever be regarded as harmless. 

Among the more important Mss which contain this epistle are the 
following. The letters in brackets[ ] give the designations adopted in the 
apparatus of various readings which follows. 

1. Fuldensis [F]. The famous ms of the Vulgate N. T. written for 
Victor Bishop of Capua, by whom it was read and corrected in the years 
546, 547; edited by Ern. Ranke, Marburgi et Lipsiae 1868. The Laodicean 
Epistle occurs between Col. and 1 Tim. without any indication of doubtful 
authenticity, except that it has no argument or table of contents, like the 
other epistles. The scribe however has erroneously interpolated part of 
the argument belonging tc 1 Tim. between the title and the epistle; sec 
p. 291 sq. of Ranke’s edition. 

2. Cavensis. A Ms of the whole Latin Bible, at the Monastery of La 
Cava near Salerno, ascribed to the 6th or 7th or 8th century. See Vercel- 
lone Var. Lect. Vulg. Lat. Bibl. 1. p. \xxxviii. Unfortunately we have no 
account of the readings in the Laodicean Epistle (for which it would be the 
most important authority after the Codex Fuldensis), except the last sen- 
tence quoted by Mai Nov. Pair. Bibl. 1. 2. p. 63, ‘ Kt facite legi Colossen- 
sium vobis.’ Laod. here oceurs between Col. and 1 Thess. (Mai p. 62). 
Dr Westcott (Smith’s Dict. of the Bible s. v. Vulgate, p. 1713) has remarked 
that the two oldest authorities for the interpolation of the three heavenly 
witnesses in 1 Joh. y. 7, this La Cava ms and the Speculum published by 
Mai, also support the Laodicean Epistle (see Mai l. c. pp. 7, 62 sq.). The 
two phenomena are combined in another very ancient Ms, Brit. Mus, ddd. 
11,852, described below. 

3. Armachanus [A]. A ms of the N. T., now belonging to Trinity 
College, Dublin, and known as the ‘ Book of Armagh.’ It was written in the 
year 807, as ascertained by Bp. Graves; see the Proceedings of the Royal 
Trish Academy 1. pp. 316, 356. The Laodicean Epistle follows Colossians 
on fol. 138, but with the warning that Jerome denies its genuineness. The 
text of the Laodicean Epistle in this Ms is not so pure as might have been 
anticipated from its antiquity. I owe the collation of readings which is 
given below to the kindness of Dr Reeves, who is engaged in editing the ms. 

4. Darmstadiensis [D]. <A fol. ms of the whole Bible, defective from 
Apoe, xxii. 12 to the end, now in the Grand-ducal library at Darmstadt, 
but formerly belonging to the Cathedral Library at Cologne; presented 
by Hermann Pius, Archbishop of Cologne from 4.p. 890—925. Laod. fol- 
lows Col. A collation was made for Anger, from whom (p. 144) this account 
is taken. 

5. Bernensis no. 334[B]. A 4to Ms of miscellaneous contents, end- 
ing with the Pauline Epistles, the last being the Epistle to the Laodiceans; 
written in the 9th cent. The Laodicean Epistle is a fragment, ending with 
‘ Gaudete in Christo et praecavete sordibus in lucro’ (ver. 13). This account 
is taken by Anger from Sinner Catal. Cod. MSS. Bibl. Bern. 1. p. 28. In 
his Addenda (p. 179) Anger gives a collation of this ms. 

6. Toletanus [T}. A Ms of the Latin Bible belonging to the Cathedral 
Library at Toledo, and written about the 8th century: see Westcott in Smith’s 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Dict. of the Bible, s.v. Vulgate p. 1710, Vercellone Var. Lect. 1. p. \xxxiv. 
sq. The readings in the Laodicean Epistle are taken from the copy of 
Palomares given in Bianchini Vind. Canon. Script. Vulg. Lat. Edit. p. 
excy (Romae, 1740). In my first edition I had followed Joh. Mariana 
Schol. in Vet. et Nov. Test. p. 831 (Paris, 1620), where also this epistle is 
printed in full from the Toledo ms. The two differ widely, and the copy 
of Mariana is obviously very inaccurate. Anger (see p. 144) does not 
mention Bianchini’s copy. In this ms Laod. follows Col. 

7. Parisiensis Reg. Lat. 3 (formerly 3562)! [P,]. A Latin Bible, in 
one volume fol., called after Anowaretha by whom it was given to the 
monastery of Glanfeuilie (St Maur), and ascribed in the printed Catalogue 
to the 9th cent. Laod. follows Col. on fol. 379. 

8. Parisiensis Reg. Lat.6[P,]. A ms of the Latin Bible in 4 vols. 
fol., according to the Catalogue probably written in the roth cent. [?]. It 
belonged formerly to the Duc de Noailles. Laod. follows Col. It contains 
numerous corrections in a Jater hand either between the lines or in the 
margin. The two hands are distinguished as P,*, P,**. 

9. Purisiensis Reg. Lat. 250 (formerly 3572)[P;]. A fol. Ms of the 
N.'l., described in the Catalogue as probably belonging to the end of the 9th 
cent. lLaod. follows Col. It has a few corrections in a later hand. The 
two hands are distinguished as P,*, P,**. 

These three Parisian mss I collated myself, but I had not time to ex- 
amine them as carefully as I could have wished. 

10, Brit, Mus. Add. 11,852 [G]. An important ms of St Paul's 
Epistles written in the 9th cent, It formerly belonged to the monastery of 
St Gall, being one of the books with which the library there was enriched by 
Hartmot who was Abbot from a.p. 872 to 884 or 885. Laod. follows Heb. 
and has no capitula like the other epistles. 

11. Brit. Mus. Add. 10,546[C]. A fol. ms of the Vulgate, commonly 
known as ‘Charlemagne’s Bible,’ but probably belonging to the age of 
Charles the Bald (+ 877). Laod. stands between Heb. and Apoc. It has 
no argument or capitula. 

12. Brit. Mus. Reg. 1. Hi. vii, viii [R]. An English ms of the Latin 
Bible from Christ Church, Canterbury, written about the middle of the 
Ioth cent. Laod. follows Heb. This is the most ancient Ms, so far as I am 
aware, in which the epistle has capitulations. It is here given in its fullest 
form, and thus presents the earliest example of what may be called the 
modern recension. 

13. Brit. Mus. Harl. 2833, 2834 [H,]. Ams of the 13th cent. written 
for the Cathedral of Angers. Laod. follows Apoc. 

The readings of the fuur preceding mss are taken from the collations 
in Westcott Canon Appx. E p. 572 sq. (ed. 4). 

14. Brit. Mus. Harl. 3131 [H.|. A smallish 4to of the 12th cent., 
said to be of German origin, with marginal and interlinear glosses in some 
parts. Laod. stands between Philem. and Heb. It has no heading but 
only a red initial letter P. At the end is ‘Expl. Epla ad Laodicenses. 
Prologus ad Ebreos.’ 

1 So at least I find the number given in my notes. But in Bentl. Crit. Sacr. 
p- Xxxvii it is 3561. 


284 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


15. Brit. Mus. Sloane 539 [S]. Asmall fol. of the 12th cent., said to be 
German. It contains St Paul’s Epistles with glosses. The gloss on 
Col. iv. 16 ‘et ea quae est Laodicensium etc.’ runs‘ quam ego eis misi ut ipsi 
michi ut videatis hic esse responsum. lLaod, follows Heb., and has no 
glosses. 

The two last mss I collated myself. 

16. Bodl. Laud. Lat. 13 (formerly 810) [L,]. A «to ms in double 
columns of the 13th cent. containing the Latin Bible. See Catal. Bibl. Laud. 
Cod. Lat. p.to. Laod. follows Col. Notwithstanding the date of the ms, 
it gives avery ancient text of this epistle. 

17. Bodl. Laud. Lat. 8 (formerly 757) [L,]. A fol. mg of the Latin 
Bible, belonging to the end of the 12th cent. See Catal. Biol. Laud. Cod. 
Lat. p.9. This is the same Ms, which Anger describes (p. 145) as 145 C 
(its original mark), and of which he gives a collation. Laod. stands between 
2 Thess. and 1 Tim. 

I am indebted for collations of these two Laudian mss to the kindness 
of the Rey. J. Wordsworth, Fellow of Brasenose College. 

18. Vindob. 287[V]. The Pauline Epp., written by Marianus Scotus 
(i.e. the Irishman), A.D. 1079. See Alter Nov. Test. ad Cod. Vindob. Graece 
Lxpressum i. p. 1040 sq., Denis Cod. MSS Lat. Bibl. Vindob. 1. no. lviii, 
Zeuss Grammatica Celtica p. xviii (ed. 2). The Epistle to the Laodiceans 
is transcribed from this Ms by Alter 1. c. p. 1067 sq. It follows Col. 

19. Trin. Coll. Cantabr. B. 5. 1 [X]. A fol. ms of the Latin Bible, 
written probably in the 12th century. Laod. follows Col. I have given a 
collation of this ms, because (like Brit. Mus. Reg. 1. E. viii) it is an early 
example of the completed form. The epistle is preceded by capitula, as 
foilows, 

IncipiuntT CapitutaA EPIsToLE AD LAODICENSEs. 

1. Paulus apostolus pro Laodicensibus domino gratias refert et horta- 
tur eos ne a seductoribus decipiantur. 

2. De manifestis vinculis apostoli in quibus letatur et gaudet. 

3. Monet Laodicenses apostolus ut sicut sui audierunt praesentia ita 
retineant et sine retractu faciant. 

4. Hortatur apostolus Laodicenses ut fide sint firmi et quae integra et 
vera et deo placita sunt faciant. et salutatio fratrum. Hxpiic1unt CaPITu- 
LA. Incrpir Epistoua BEATI PauLI APOSTOLI AD LAODICENSES. 

These capitulations may be compared with those given by Dr Westcott 
from Reg. 1. H. viii, with which they are nearly identical. 

Besides these nineteen mss, of which (with the exception of Cavensis) 
collations are given below, it may be worth while recording the following, 
as containing this epistle, 

Among the Lambeth mss are (i) no. 4, large folio, 12th or 13th cent. 
Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess. (ii) no. 90, small folio, 13th or 
14th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess. without title or heading 
of any kind. Apparently a good text. (iii) no. 348, 4to, 15th cent. Laod. 
stands between Col. and 1 Thess., without heading etc. (iv) no. 544, 8vo, 
15th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess., without heading etc. 
(v) no. 1152, 4to, 13th or 14th cent. Laod. occupies the same position as 
in the four preceding Mss and has no heading or title. The first and last 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


of these five mss are collated by Dr Westcott (Canon p. 572 sq.). I in- 
spected them all. 

In the Bodleian Library at Oxford, belonging to the Canonici collection, 
are (i) Canon. Bibl. 82 (see Catal. p. 277), very small 4to, 13th cent., con- 
taining parts of the N.T. St Paul’s Epp. are at the end of the volume, 
following Apoc. Laod. intervenes between Tit. and Philem., beginning 
‘Explicit epistola ad titum. Incipit ad laud’, and ending ‘ Explicit epistola 
ad laudicenses. Incipit ad phylemonem’. (ii) Canon. Bibl. 7 (see Catal. 
p. 251), small 4to, beginning of 14th cent., containing Evy., Acts, Cath. 
Epp., Apoc., Paul. Epp. Laod. is at the end. (iii) Canon. Bibl. 16 (Catav. 
p. 256), small 4to, containing the N. T., 15th cent., written by the hand 
‘Stephani de Tautaldis’. Laod. follows Col. (iv) Canon. Bibl. 25 (Catal. 
p. 258), very small 4to, mutilated, early part of the 15th cent. It contains 
a part of St Paul’s Hpp. (beginning in the middle of Gal.) and the Apoca- 
lypse. Laod. follows Col. For information respecting these mss I am 
indebted to the Rev. J. Wordsworth. 

In the University Library, Cambridge, I have observed the Epistle to the 
Laodiceans in the following Mss. (i) Dd. 5. 52 (see Catal. 1. p. 273), 4to, 
double columns, 14th cent. Laod. is between Col. and 1 Thess. (ii) Ee. 
I. 9 (see Catal. 11. p. 10), 4t0, double columns, very small neat hand, 15th 
cent. It belonged to St Alban’s. Laod. is between Col. and 1 Thess. 
(iii) Mm. 3. 2 (see Catal. 1v. p. 174), fol., Latin Bible, double columns, 13th 
cent. Laod. is between Col. and 1 Thess., but the heading is ‘ Explicit 
epistola ad Colocenses, et hic incipit ad Thesalocenses’, after which Laod. 
follows immediately. At the top of the page is ‘Ad Laudonenses’, 
(iv) He. 1, 16 (see Catal. 1. p. 16), 4t0, doubie columns, Latin Bible, 13th 
or 14th cent. The order of the N. T. is Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul. Epp., 
Apoc. Here Laod. is between Heb. and Rev.; it is treated like the other 
books, except that it has no prologue. 

In the College Libraries at Cambridge I have accidentally noticed the 
following Mss as containing the epistle; for I have not undertaken any 
systematic search. (i) St Peter’s, O. 4. 6, fol., 2 columns, 13th cent., Latin 
Bible. The order of the N. T. is Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul Epp., Apoc. 
The Epistle to the Laodiceans is between Heb. and Apoc. (ii) Sidney A. 
5. 11, fol., 2 columns, Latin Bible, 13th cent. The order of the N.T. is 
Evy., Paul. Epp., Acts, Cath. Epp., Apoc.; and Laod. is between 2 Thess. 
and 1 Tim, (iii) Emman. 2. 1. 6, large fol., Latin Bible, early 14th cent. The 
order of the N. T. is different from the last, being Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., 
Paul. Epp., Apoc.; but Laod. is in the same position, between 2 Thess. and 
x/Tim: 

Notice of a few other Mss, in which this epistle occurs, will be found 
in Hody de Bibl. Text. Orig. p. 664, and in Anger p. 145 sq. 

This list, slight and partial as it is, will serve to show the wide circula- 
tion of the Laodicean Epistle. At the same time it will have been ob- 
served that its position varies very considerably in different copies, 

(i) The most common position is immediately after Colossians, as the 
notice in Col. iv. 16 would suggest. This is its place in the most ancient 
authorities, e.g. the Fulda, La Cava, and Toledo mss, and the Book of 
Armagh, 


285 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


(ii) Another positionis after 2 Thess. So Laud. Lat. 8, Sidn. A. 5. 11, 
Emman. 2. 1.6: seealso mss in Hody Bibl. Text. Orig. p. 664. It must 
be remembered that in the Latin Bibles the Epistles to the Thessalonians 
sometimes precede and sometimes follow the Epistle to the Colossians. 
Hence we get three arrangements in different mss; (1) 1, 2 Thess. Col. 
Laod.; (2) Col., Laod., 1, 2 Thess.; (3) Col., 1, 2 Thess., Laod. 

(iii) It occurs at least in one instance between Titus and Philemon ; 
Oxon. Bodl. Canon. 82. Mai also (ov. Patr. Bibl. 1. 2. p. 63) men- 
tions a ‘very ancient Ms’, in which it stands between Titus and 1 John; 
but he does not say how Titus and 1 John appear in such close neighbour- 
hood. 

(iv) Again it follows Philemon in Brit. Mus. Harl. 3131. This also 
must have been its position in the Latin ms which the scribe of the Codex 
Boernerianus had before him: see above p. 280. 

(v) Another and somewhat common position is after Hebrews; e.g. 
Brit. Mus. Add. 11,852, Add. 10,546, Reg. 1. HE. viii, Sloane 539, Camb. 
Univ. Ee. 1. 16, Pet. O. 4.6. See also Hody l.c. 

(vi) It is frequently placed at the end of the New Testament, and so 
after the Apocalypse when the Apocalypse comes last, e.g. Harl. 2833. 
Sometimes the Pauline Epistles follow the Apocalypse, so that Laod. occurs 
at the end at once of the Pauline Epistles and of the N.T.; e.g. Bodl. 
Canon. Lat. 7. 

Other exceptional positions, e.g. after Galatians or after 3 John, are 
found in versions and printed texts (seo Anger p. 143); but no authority 
of Latin mss is quoted for them. 

The Codex Fuldensis, besides being the oldest ms, is also by far the 
most trustworthy. In some instances indeed a true reading may be pre- 
served in later mss, where it has a false one; but such cases are rare, 
The text however was already corrupt in several places at this time; 
and the variations in the later mss are most frequently attempts of the 
scribes to render it intelligible by alteration or amplification. Such 
for instance is the case with the mutilated reading ‘quod-est’ (ver. 13), 
which is amplified, even as early as the Book of Armagh, into ‘quod- 
cunque optimum est’, though there can be little doubt that the expression: 
represents 70 Aowrév of Phil. iii. 2, and the missing word therefore is ‘ reli- 
quum’. The greatest contrast to F is presented by such mss as RX, where 
the epistle has not only been filled out to the amplest proportions, but also 
supplied with a complete set of capitulations like the Canonical books. 
Though for this reason these two mss have no great value, yet they are 
interesting as being among the oldest which give the amplified text, and I 
have therefore added a collation of them. On the other hand some much 
later Mss, especially L,, preserve a very ancient text, which closely resem- 
bles that of F. 


1 The epistle has been criticaily In the apparatus of various readings, 
edited by Anger Laodicenerbrief p.155 which is subjoined to the epistle, I 
sq. and Westcott Canon App. E. p. 572. have not attempted to give such mi- 
T have already expressed my obligations nute differences of spelling as e and ae, 
to both these writers for their colla- orc and t (Laodicia, Laoditia), nor is 
tions of mss. the punctuation of the mss noted. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


AD LAODICENSES. 


287 


Pau.us Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem sed per Text of the 
Thesum Christum, fratribus qui sunt Laodiciae. * Gratia vobis et pax °Pistle. 


a Deo patre et Domino Ihesu Christo. 

*Gratias ago Christo per omnem orationem meam, quod perma- 
nentes estis in eo et perseverantes in operibus eius, promissum ex- 
pectantes in diem iudicii. *Neque destituant vos quorundam vanilo- 
quia insinuantium, ut vos avertant a veritate evangelii quod a me 
praedicatur. *°Et nunc faciet Deus ut qui sunt ex me ad profectum 
veritatis evangelii deservientes et facientes benignitatem operum quae 
salutis vitae aeternae. 

° Et nunc palam sunt vincula mea quae patior in Christo; quibus 


Ine. ad laodicenses F; Incipit epistola ad laodicenses (laudicenses P,R) 
BDTP,P,P,CRH,SV; Epistola ad laodicenses M (if this heading be not due to the 
editor); Incipit epistola pauli ad laodicenses GH,; Incipit epistola beati pauli 
ad laodicenses X; Incipit aepistola ad laudicenses sed hirunimus eam negat 
esse pauli A: no heading in L,L,H,. 

apostolus] om. TM. hominibus] homine G. ihesum christum] christum 
ihesum T. christum] add. ‘et deum patrem omnipotentem qui suscitavit eum 
a mortuis’ RX. fratribus qui sunt] his qui sunt fratribus A. For fratribus 
B has fratres. laodiciae] laudociae T; ladoicie L; laudaciae A; landiciae R; 
laodiceae B. 

2. patre] et patre nostro L,; patre nostro H,H,SM; nostro A. domino] 
add. nostro P,P;RGL,. 

3. christo] deo meo DP,P,P,CL,; deo meo et christo ihesu RX. meam] 
memoriam M. permanentes estis] estis permanentes AGR. in operibus 
eius] in operibus bonis H,H,S; om. BDTP,P,P,;CM. promissum expectantes] 
promissum spectantes T; et promissum expectantes M; promissionem expec- 
tantes V; sperantes promissionem AG; sperantes promissum RX, diem] die 
BIDP,P,GCRH,H,SL,VMX. _iudicii] iudicationis GRX. 

4. neque] add.*enim R. destituant] distituant A; destituunt H,; 
destituat M, Spec.; destituit DIP,P,CM; distituit B; destitui P,. vaniloquia} 
vaniloquentia BDTP,P,P,GCVM; vaneloquentia, Spec. insinuantium] 
insinuantium se GM; insanientium H,S. ut] sed ut BAT; sed peto ne R; 
seductorem ne X. avertant] Spec.; evertant FTML,; evertent B. _evangelii] 
sevanguelii A (and so below). 

5. et nunc...veritatis evangelii] om. L. faciet deus] deus faciet AG. 
ut] add. sint G. qui] que (altered from qui) P,* (or P,**). me] add. per- 
veniant TM; add. proficiant V. ad profectum] imperfectum A; ad perfectum 
R; in profectum G. veritatis evangelii] evangelii veritatis V. | deservientes] 
add. sint P,**P,**H,H,S. Jor deservientes RX have dei servientes. et faci- 
entes] repeated in L,. operum] eorum RX; operam T; opera Ly. quae] 
om. M; add. sunt AP,**GCRH,H,SVX. It is impossible to say in many cases 
whether a scribe intended operum quae or operumque, Ranke prints operum- 
que in F. salutis] add. L,. 

6. nunc] nd=non L,. palam sunt] sunt palam G; sunt (om. palam) A. 


288 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Textofthe laetor et gaudeo. *Et hoc mihi est ad salutem perpetuam ; quod 


episile, 


ipsum factum orationibus vestris et administrante Spiritu sancto, 
sive per vitam sive per mortem. ° Est enim mihi vivere in Christo 
et mori gaudium. ° Ht id ipsum in vobis faciet misericordia sua, ut 
eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes. 

” Ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis praesentia mei, ita retinete et facite 
in timore Dei, et erit vobis vita in aeternum: "Est enim Deus qui 
operatur in vos. 7 Kt facite sine retractu quaecumque facitis, 

8 Et quod est [reliquum], dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo ; et prae- 
cavete sordidos in lucro. “Omnes sint petitiones vestrae palam apud 
Deum ; et estote firmi in sensu Christi, “ Et quae integra et vera et 


Christo] add. Ihesu (iesu) DP,P,P,0VX. quibus] in quibus TRMP,. 
et] ut C. 

7. mihi] michi H,S (and so below); enim ( for mihi) M. factum] fletum 
TL,M; factum est P,**H,S. orationibus] operationibus B. vestris] meis 


DP,. et] est TM: om. GRL,X. administrante spiritu sancto] adminis- 
trantem (or ad ministrantem) spiritum sanctum FBTL,; amministrante 
spiritum sanctum DCP,P,* (but there is an erasure in P,). For administrante 
L,X have amministrante; and for spiritu sancto G transposes and reads sancto 
spiritu. per mortem] mortem (om. per) H,. 

8. mihi] om. M. vivere] vivere vita DTP,P,P,CVH,H,.S; vere vita 
FL,RMX; vera vitaB; vere (altered into vivere prima manu) vitaL,. gaudium] 
lucrum et gaudium A; gaudium ut lucrum H,P,**; gaudium vel lucrum H,S. 

9. et] quiV. idipsum] in ipsum FBL,; in idipsum L,V; ipsum TP,GM; 
ipse AH,H,SRX. in vobis] vobis P,; in nobis Hy. misericordia sua] 
misericordiam suam FBDAP,P,P,CH,H,RSVL,L,X (but written misericordia 
sua in several cases). et] om. L,; ut V. unianimes] unanimes BDTP, 
P,P,GCH,RL,L,VMSX. 

Io. ergo] ego H,. ut] et Ly. praesentia mei] praesentiam ei DP; 
praesentiam mei T; praesentiam G**; in praesentia mei P,**; praesentiam 
mihi M; presenciam eius L,; praesentiam dei A; presentiam domini (dni) 
P,**H,H,S. ita] om. DP,P,**P,CX. _retinete] retinere A, in] cum TM; 
om. B. timore] timorem AB. dei] domini H,S. vita] pax et vita RX. 
in aeternum] in aeterno A; in aeterna G*; aeterna (eterna) G**PL,. 

ir, enimjom.B. vos] vobis GATH,H,SRVP,** (or P,*) P,**MX. 

12. retractu] retractatu BP,RL,; retractatione AGV; tractu T; reatu H,S. 
In P,** ut peccato is added; in Hy t peccato, quaecumque] quodcumque 
TM. 

13. quod est reliquum] quod est FBTDP,P,*P,*RCL,L,MX; quod est opti- 
mum GH,H,SV; quodcunque optimum est A; quodcunque est obtimum 
P,**; quod bonum est P,**: see p. 290. dilectissimi] dilectissime B. christo] 
domino DP,P,P,CX. sordidos] add. omnes P,**H,H,S; add. homines A, 
in] ut 1). lucro] lucrum RX. 

14. omnes] in omnibus G; homines (attached to the preceding sentence) 
TM. petitiones] petiones T. sint] omitted here and placed after palam 
7,8. apud] aput F; ante AG. deum] dominum A, estote] stote T, 
firmi in sensu christi] sensu firmi in christo ihesu R. 

15. quae] add. sunt R. integra] intigra A. vera] add. sunt DP,P,P; 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 289 


pudica et iusta et amabilia, facite. '* Et quae audistis et accepistis in Text of the 
corde retinete ; et erit vobis pax. cpio. 

*® Salutant vos sancti. 

”’ Gratia Domini Ihesu cum spiritu vestre, 

* Et facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis. 

CVX. pudica et iusta] iusta et pudica R. iusta] iusta et casta AGV; 
casta et iusta P,**H,H,S. amabilia] add. sunt TH,H,SM; add. et sancta 
RX. 

16. audistis] add. et vidistis Ly. accepistis] accipistis A, pax] add. 
ver. 17, salutate omnes fratres (sanctos for fratres GV) in osculo sancto AGP,** 
H,H,SRVX. 

18. sancti] omnes sancti AGRH,SVX; sancti omnes H,; add. in christo 
ihesu RX. 

19. domini ihesu] domini nostri ihesu (iesu) christi DTAP,P,P,GCH,H,S 
VMRX. 

20. et] add. hanc H,H,SP,**. legi] add. epistolam L,P,**. colosen- 
sibus et] om. FTDP,P,*P,CVL,L,. They are also omitted in the La Cava MS; 
see above p. 282. colosensium] add. epistolam L,. The words colosensibus, 
colosensium, are commonly written with a single 8, more especially in the oldest 
MSS. In Ly, the form is cholosensium. 

The last sentence et facite etc. is entirely omitted in M. In RX it is ex- 
panded into et facite legi colosensibus hance epistolam et colosensium (colosen- 
sibus R) vos legite. deus autem et pater domini nostri ihesu christi custodiat 
vos immaculatos in christo ihesu cui est honor et gloria in secula seculorum. 
amen. 

Subscriptions. Explicit P,P,H,; Exp. ad laodicenses F; Explicit epistola 
ad laodicenses (laudicenses R) DP,GCH,SRVX; Finis T. There is no subscrip- 
tion in AL, L,, and none is given for M. 

The following notes are added for the sake of elucidating one or two Notes on 
points of difficulty in the text or interpretation of the epistle. the epis- 

4 Neque] This is the passage quoted in the Speculum § 50 published by tle. 
Mai Nov. Patr. Bibl. 1. 2. p. 62 sq., ‘Item ad Laodicenses: Neque destituat 
vos quorundam vaneloquentia (sic) insinuantium, ut vos avertant a veritate 
evangelii quod a me praedicatur’. We ought possibly to adopt the reading 
‘destituat...vaniloquentia’ of this and other old mss in preference to the 
‘destituant...vaniloquia’ of F. ‘Vaniloquium’ however is the rendering of 
paraodoyia I Tim. i. 6, and is supported by such analogies as inaniloquium, 
maliloquium, multiloquium, stultiloquium, etc.; see Hagen Sprachi. Erérter. 
zur Vulgata p. 74, Roensch Das Neue Testament Tertullians Dp. 750, 

destituant] Properly ‘leave in the lurch’ and so ‘ cheat’, ‘beguile’, e.g. 
Cic. pro Rosc. Am. 40 ‘induxit, decepit, destituit, adversariis tradidit, omni 
fraude et perfidia fefellit.’ In Heb. ix. 26 eis dOérnow ris duaprias is trans- 
lated ‘ad destitutionem peccati’. The original here may have been é£ara- 
ThowoL OY abernowcty. insinuantium] In late Latin this word means 
little more than ‘to communicate’, ‘to inculcate’, ‘to teach’: see the refer- 
ences in Roensch Jtala u. Vulgata p. 387, Heumann-Hesse Handlexicon 
des romischen Rechts 8. v., Ducange Glossarium s. vy. So too ‘insinuator’ 
Tertull. ad Nat. ii. 1, ‘insinuatrix’? August. Ep. 110 (11 p. 317). In Acts 
xvii. 3 it is the rendering of rapariOépevos. 


COL. 19 


290 


Notes on 
the epis- 
tle. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


5 ut qui sunt etc.] The passage, as it stands, is obviously corrupt; and 
a comparison with Phil. i. 12 ra kar’ éué paddov els mpoxomny rod evay- 
yeAiov eAnrvbey seems to reveal the nature of the corruption. (1) For 
‘qui’ we should probably read ‘quae’, which indeed is found in some 
late Mss of no authority. (2) There is a lacuna somewhere in the sen- 
tence, probably after ‘evangelii’. The original therefore would run in this 
form ‘ut quae sunt ex me ad profectum veritatis [eveniant]...deservientes 
etc’, the participles belonging to a separate sentence of which the beginning 
is lost. The suppleménts ‘ perveniant’, ‘ proficiant’, found in some Mss give 
the right sense, though perhaps they are conjectural. The Vulgate of Phil. 
i. 12 is ‘quae circa me sunt magis ad profectum venerunt.evangelii’. In the 
latter part of the verse it is impossible in many cases to say whether a 
Ms intends ‘operum quae’ or ‘operumque’; but the former is probably 
correct, as representing ¢pywv ray ris cwtnpias: unless indeed this sen- 
tence also is corrupt or mutilated. 

7 administrante etc.] Considering the diversity of readings here, we 
may perhaps venture on the emendation ‘administratione spiritus sancti’, 
as this more closely resembles the passage on which our text is founded, 
Phil. i. 19 81a ris Udy Senoews Kal emtyopnyias Too mvevparos K.T.A. 

12 retractu] ‘ezuvering’, ‘hesitation’. For this sense of ‘retractare’, 
‘to rehandle, discuss’, and so ‘to question, hesitate’, and even ‘to shirk’, 
‘decline’, see Oehler Tertullian, index p. cxciii, Roensch N. 7. Tertullians 
p. 669, Ducange Glossarium s. v.: comp. e.g. Iren.v. 11. 1 ‘ne relinqueretur 
quaestio his qui infideliter retractant de eo’. So ‘retractator’ is equivalent 
to ‘detractator’ in Tert. de Jejun. 15 ‘retractatores hujus officii’ (see 
Oehler’s note); and in 1 Sam. xiv. 39 ‘absque retractatione morietur’ is the 
rendering of ‘dying he shall die’, Oavarw dmoOaveirar. Here the expression 
probably represents ywpis...dadoyrcpay of Phil. ii. 14, which in the Old Latin 
is ‘sine...detractionibus’. All three forms occur, retractus (Tert. Scorp. 1), 
retractatus (Tert. A pol. 4, adv. Marc. i. 1, v. 3, adv. Prax. 2, and frequently), 
retractatio (Cic. Tusc. v. 29, ‘sine retractatione’ and so frequently; 1 Sam. 
l.c.). Here ‘retractus’ must be preferred, both as being the least common 
form and as having the highest Ms authority. In Tert. Scorp. 1 however 
it is not used in this same sense. 

13 quod est reliquum] I have already spoken of this passage, p. 286, and 
shall have to speak of it again, p.291. The oldest and most trustworthy 
mss have simply ‘quod est’. The word ‘reliquum’ must be supplied, as 
Anger truly discerned (p. 163); for the passage is taken from Phil. ili. 1 ro 
Aourdv, adeAot pov, xalpere ev Kupio. See the Vulgate translation of ré 
Aourdy in 1 Cor. vii. 29. Later and less trustworthy authorities supply 
‘optimum’ or ‘ bonum’. 

14 in sensu Christi] ‘in the mind of Christ’: for in 1 Cor. ii. 16 voov 
Xpicrod is rendered ‘sensum Christi’. 

20 facite legi etc.] Though the words ‘Colosensibus et’ are wanting in 
very many of the authorities which are elsewhere most trustworthy, yet I 
have felt justified in retaining them with other respectable copies, because 
(1) The homeeoteleuton would account for their omission even in very an- 
cient Mss; (2) The parallelism with Col. iv. 16 requires their insertion; 
(3) The insertion is not like the device of a Latin scribe, who would hardly 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 291 


have manipulated the sentence into a form which sayours so strongly of a 
Greek original. 


It is the general, though not universal, opinion that this epistle was Theory of 
altogether a forgery of the Western Church!; and consequently that the a Greek 
Latin is not a translation from a lost Greek original, but preserves the ee a 
earliest form of the epistle. Though the forgery doubtless attained its ‘ 
widest circulation in the West, there are, I venture to think, strong reasons 
for dissenting from this opinion, 

If we read the epistle in its most authentic form, divested of the addi- Frequent 
tions contributed by the later Mss, we are struck with its cramped style. Grecisms 
Altogether it has not the run of a Latin original. And, when we come to !2 the 
examine it in detail, we find that this constraint is due very largely to the emis 
fetters imposed by close adherence to Greek idiom. Thus for instance we 
have ver. 5 ‘gui [or guae] sunt ex me’, oi [or ra] é& énod; operum quae 
salutis, épywv tav ths cornpias; ver. 6 palam vincula mea quae patior, 
pavepot of Seapoi pou ovs Umopévw; Ver. 13 sordidos in lucro, aicypoxepsdeis ; 
ver. 20 et facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis, cat moiwjcate iva Trois 
Kodaocaetow dvayvecb7 Kat 7 Kodacoaéwv iva [kai] vpiv. It is quite 
possible indeed that parallels for some of these anomalies may be found in 
Latin writers. Thus Tert. c. Marc. i. 23 ‘redundantia justitiae super scri- 
barum et Pharisaeorum’ is quoted to illustrate the genitive ‘Colosensium’ 
ver. 20%, The Greek cast however is not confined to one or two expressions 
but extends to the whole letter. 

But a yet stronger argument in favour of a Greek original remains. It differs 
This epistle, as we saw, is a cento of passages from St Paul If it had been widely 
written originally in Latin, we should expect to find that the passages were rete e 

: s 2 ; : atin 
taken directly from the Latin versions. This however is not the case. Thus gn Vul- 
compare ver. 6 ‘yalam sunt vincula mea’ with Phil. i. 13 ‘ut vincula mea gate Ver- 
manifesta fierent’: ver. 7 ‘orationibus vestris et administrante spiritu sions. 
sancto’ [administratione spiritus sancti’?] with Phil. i. 19 ‘per vestram 
obsecrationem (V. orationem) et subministrationem spiritus sancti’; ver. 9 
‘ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes’ with Phil. ii. 2 ‘ean- 
dem caritatem habentes, unanimes’; ver. 10 ‘ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis 
praesentia mei.. facite in timore’ with Phil. ii. 12 ‘Propter quod (V. Itaque) 
dilectissimi mihi (V. charissimi mei) sicut semper obaudistis (V. obedis- 
dis)... praesentia (V. in praesentia) mei...cwm timore (V. metu)...operamini’; 
ver. I1, 12 ‘ Lst enim Deus qui operatur in vos (v. 1. vobis). Et facite sine 
retractu quaecumque facitis’ with Phil. ii. 13,14 Deus enim est qui operatur 
in vobis...Omnia autem facite sine...detractionibus (V. haesitationibus)’; 
ver. 13 ‘quod est [reliquum], dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo et praecavete’ 
with Phil. iii. 1, 2 ‘de caetero, fratres mei, gaudete in Domino... Videte’ ; ib. 
‘sordidos in lucro’ with the Latin renderings of aicypoxepdeis 1 Tim. iii. 8 
‘turpilucros’ (V. ‘turpe lucrum sectantes’), aicxpoxepdq Tit. i. 7 turpi- 

1 e.g. Anger Laodicenerbrief p.142 rum quidem, qui testetur eam a se 
8q., Westcott Canon p. 454 8q. (ed. 4). lectam??’ The accuracy of this state- 
Erasmus asks boldly, ‘Quifactum est ment will be tested presently. 
ut haec epistola apud Latinos extet, 2 Anger p. 165. 
cum nullus sit apud Graecos, ne vete- 


19—2 


292 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 
lucrum (V. ‘turpis lucri cupidum’); ver. 14 ‘sint petitiones vestrae 
palam apud Deum’ with Phil. iv. 6 ‘postulationes (V. petitiones) vestrae 
innotescant apud Deum’; ver. 20 ‘ facite Zegi Colosensibus et Colosensium 
vobis’ with Col. iv. 16 ‘facite wt et in Laodicensium ecclesia legatur et eam 
quae Laodicensium (mss Laodiciam) est ut (om. V.) vos legatis’. These 
Thus in- examples tell their own tale. The occasional resemblances to the Latin 
ternal Version are easily explained on the ground that reminiscences of this 
riba version would naturally occur to the translator of the epistle. The 
a Greek habitual divergences from it are only accounted for on the hypothesis that 
original. the original compiler was better acquainted with the New Testament in 
Greek than in Latin, and therefore presumably that he wrote in Greek. 
External And, if we are led to this conclusion by an examination of the epistle 


testimony jtself, we shall find it confirmed by an appeal to external testimony. 


Lae There is ample evidence that a spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans was 
per ~ known to Greek writers, as well as Latin, at a sufficiently early date. A 
[Murato- mention of such an epistle occurs as early as the Muratorian Fragment on 


rian Frag- the Canon (about a.p. 170), where the writer speaks of two letters, one to 
ment. } the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, as circulated under the 
name of Paul4, The bearing of the words however is uncertain. He may 
be referring to the Marcionite recension of the canonical Epistle to the 
Ephesians, which was entitled by that heretic an epistle to the Laodiceans?. 
Or, if this explanation of his words be not correct (as perhaps it is not), 
still we should not feel justified in assuming that he is referring to the ex- 


tant apocryphal epistle. 


of this character would be written and circulated at so early a date. 


Indeed we should hardly expect that an epistle 


The 


reference in Col. iv. 16 offered a strong temptation to the forger, and proba- 


1 Canon Murat. p. 47 (ed. Tregelles). 
The passage stands in the ms, ‘Fertur 
etiam ad Laudecenses alia ad Alexan- 
drinos Pauli nomine fincte ad heresem 
Marcionis et alia plura quae in catho- 
licam eclesiam recepi non potest.’ 
There is obviously some corruption in 
the text. One very simple emenda- 
tion is the repetition of ‘alia’, so that 
the words would run ‘ad Laudicenses 
alia, alia ad Alexandrinos’. In this 
case fincte (=finctae) might refer to 
the two epistles first mentioned, and 
the Latin would construe intelligibly. 
The writing described as ‘ad Laodi- 
censes alia’ might then be the Epistle 
to the Ephesians under its Marcionite 
title, the writer probably not having 
any personal knowledge of it, but sup- 
posing from its name that it was a dif- 
ferent and a forged writing. But what 
can then be the meaning of ‘alia ad 
Alexandrinos’? Is it, as some have 
thought, the Epistle to the Hebrews? 
But this could not under any circum- 


stances be described as ‘fincta ad hae- 
resem Marcionis’, even though we 
should strain the meaning of the 
preposition and interpret the words 
‘against the heresy of Marcion’. And 
again our knowledge of Marcion’s Ca- 
non is far too full to admit the hypo- 
thesis that it included a spurious Epi- 
stle to the Alexandrians, of which no 
notice is elsewhere preserved. We are 
therefore driven to the conclusion that 
there is a hiatus here, as in other 
places of this fragment, probably after 
‘Pauli nomine’; and ‘finctae’ will then 
refer not to the two epistles named 
before, but to the mutilated epistles 
of Marcion’s Canon which he had 
‘tampered with to adapt them to his 
heresy’. In this case the letter ‘ad 
Laudicenses’ may refer to our apocry- 
phal epistle or to some earlier for- 
gery. 

2 See the Introduction to the Epi- 
stle to the Ephesians. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 293 


bly more than one unscrupulous person was induced by it to try his hand at 
falsification’. But, however this may be, it seems clear that before the close 

of the fourth century our epistle was largely circulated in the East and West 

alike. ‘Certain persons’, writes Jerome in his account of St Paul, ‘read Jerome. 
also an Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by all”. No doubt is 
entertained that this father refers to our epistle. If then we find that Theodore. 
about the same time Theodore of Mopsuestia also mentions an Epistle to 

the Laodiceans, which he condemns as spurious’, it is a reasonable inference 

that the same writing is meant. In this he is followed by Theodoret*; and Theodoret. 
indeed the interpretations of Col. iv. 16 given by the Greek Fathers of this 

age were largely influenced, as we have seen, by the presence of the spurious 

epistle which they were anxious to discredit®, Even two or three centuries 

later the epistle seems to have been read in the Hast. At the Second 2nd Coun- 
Council of Niczea (A.D. 787) it was found necessary to warn people against cil of 

‘a forged Epistle to the Laodiceans’ which was ‘circulated, having a place “"°** 


in some copies of the Apostle®’ 


The Epistle to the Laodiceans then in the original Greek would run The Greek 


somewhat as follows’: 


TTPOZ AAOAIKEAZ. 


*TTIAYAO= amdctoAoc oyk dm ANOpwTMN oYAE AI ANOpCTTOY * Gal. i. 1. 
AAA Ald “lHCOF Xpicrof, Toic AdeAdoic Toic oycin én Aaodikeia. 
*PXapic YMIN Kal €ipHNH aT1d Oeof Tatpdc Kai Kypioy "lucoy § Gal. i, 33 


Xpictof. 


1 Timotheus, who became Patriarch 
of Constantinople in 511, while still a 
presbyter includes in a list of apocry- 
phal works forged by the Manicheans 4 
mevrexatoeKaTn [i.e. Tod ILavXov] mpds 
Aaodixe?sériorod}, Meursep.117(quoted 
by Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. 1. 
p. 139). Anger (p. 27) suggests that 
there is a confusion of the Marcionites 
and Manicheans here. I am disposed 
to think that Timotheus recklessly 
credits the Manicheans with several 
forgeries of which they were innocent, 
among others with our apocryphal 
Epistle to the Laodiceans. Still it is 
possible that there was another Lao- 
dicean Epistle forged by these heretics 
to support their peculiar tenets. 

2 Vir. Ill. 5 (11. p. 840) ‘Legunt qui- 
dam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omni- 
bus exploditur’. 

3 The passage is quoted pg p. 
275, note I. 

* rwés bmédaBov Kal mpds Meomieae 
avrov yeypadévass ad’rika rolyw Kal 


mwpocpépover wemAag ev yv émicToN}v. 

* Anger (p. 143) argues against a 
Greek original on the ground that the 
Eastern Church, unlike the Latin, did 
not generally interpret Col. iv. 16 as 
meaning an epistle written to.the Lao- 
diceans. The fact is true, but the in- 
ference is wrong, as the language of 
the Greek commentators themselves 
shows. 

§ Act. vi. Tom, v (Labbe viz. p. 
1125 ed. Colet.) cal yap toi Oelov dmo- 
arddov mpos Aaodikets péperat mracriy 
émiaTto\n év Tice BiBdows TOO daroardd\vv 
éyKkeevn, qv of marépes Huey dmedoxi- 
Bacay ws a’rov addoTpiav. 

7 A Greek version is given in Elias 
Hutter’s Polyglott New Testament 
(Noreb. 1599): see Anger p. 147, note g. 
But I have retranslated the epistle 
anew, introducing the Pauline passages, 
of which it is almost entirely made up, 
as they stand in the Greek Testament. 
The references are given in the mar. 
gin, 


restored. 


294 


* Phil. i. 3. 

4 Gal. v. 5. 

°2 Pet. ii. 9; 
wi 7s of. 
Phil. 1. 16. 
Py Pim. 1-6. 
& 2 Tim. iv. 4. 
b Col. i. 5; 
Galli 5. Ta. 
‘Gal. i. 11 
(cf. i. 8). 

K Phil. 1, 12. 


2 Pil, 1.13: 
m Matt. v. 12; 
of) Phil. 1.18. 
® Phil. i. x9. 


° Phil. i. 20. 
P Phil. i. 21. 


4 Phil, ii. 2. 
F Phil. ii. 12. 


* 2 Thess. ii. 5 
(see vulg.). 
‘Phil i. 13. 
= Phil. ii. 14. 
= Col. ii.1 7,23. 
7 Phils i: 1, 

* 1 Tim, ili, 8; 
Tit. i. 7. 

* Phil. iv. 6. 

> Cor. xv. 58. 
°y Cor, ii. 16. 
4 Phil. iv. 8, 9. 


© Phil. iv. 22. 
f Phil. iv. 23. 


& Col, iv. 16. 


Scanty cir- 
culation in 
the East, 


but wide 
diffusion 
in the 
West. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


*eEyyapicta® Ta Xpicta én dcH AeHcel Moy, GTI EcTE EN dYT@ 
MENONTEC Kal TIPOCKAPTEPOYNTEC TOIC Epfolc ayTOY, 7ATEKAEYOMENOI 
THN €TTarreAlaN °eic HMEPAN KPICEWC. 

“MHAE YMSC EZATIATHCOOCIN FMaTAIOAOTIAI TIN@N AIAACKONTOON 
ina ®dtroctpeyocin YmMdc Amd "tAc AAHGElac ‘TOY eYarreAioy TOY 
eYarreAlcbeNtoc ym emoy. “Kal NYN TrolHcel 6 Ococ fnNa Fra €2 
émof €ic TIPOKOTHN TAC dAHOEIAC TOY eYarreAloy * * « AATPEYONTEC 
KAl TIOIOfNTEC YPHCTOTHTA EPfHN TON THC cwTHpiac [Kal] TAC 
ai@nioy zwfic. Kal NYN ‘anepol Of AEcMO! MOY, OYC YTTOMEN® EN 
XpicT@, EN Oic ™yalpw Kal AraAAI@MAL "Kal =TOYTS EcTIN Mot Eic 
COTHPIAN dIAION, O Kal ATTEBH AIA TAC YM@N AEHCEWC Kal ETTIYOPH- 
riac TINEYMATOC AfloY, CeiTE AIA ZwWAC ElTe Ald OAaNdTOY. °PEmoil fap 
TO ZAiN EN XpicT@ Kal TO ATTOBANEIN YAPA. *KAI TO AYTO TrolHcel [Kal] 
EN YMIN AlA TOY EA€oyC AYTOY, INA 4THN AYTHN APATTHN EYHTE, CYM- 
yyyol OnTec. **ddcTe, AraTTHTO!, KAOdC YTHKOYCATE EN TH Trapoycia 
MOY, OYT@C ®MNHMONEYONTEC META @dBoy Kypioy eprazecbe, Kal 
ECTAl YMIN ZWH eEic TON Ai@Na’ “*OQedc rdép écTIN 6 ENEpr@N EN 
ymin. “kal “roleiTe yopic AlaAoricCMON *6 TI EAN TIOIATE. 

*Kai Ytd AOITON, APATTHTO!, yalpeTe EN Xpicta@.  BA€rreTe AE 
Toyc “aicypokepAcic. “#rdNTA TA AITHMATA YMON FNOPIZECO@ TIPUC 
TON Oedn. kal Pédpatol rinecOe EN °TG Nol TOY Xpictoy. “*dca Te 
OAGKAHPA Kal AAHOA Kal CEMNA Kal AlKAIA KAl TIPOCHIAA, TAFTA 
Tpaccete. “A Kal HKOYCATE Kal TIApEABETE, EN TH KapAla KpaTEiTeE, 
Kal H €IPHNH EcTal MEO YMON. 

80? AcTIAZONTAI YMAC O1 STIOl. 

*°H ydpic toY Kypioy “lHcof Xpicto¥ meta tof tINeyMaToc 
YMON. 

kal TroIHcaTe TNA ToIc KoAaccaeYcIN ANAaPN@COH, Kal H TON 
KoAaccaéwn iNd Kal YMIN. 


But, though written originally in Greek, it was not among Greek Christ- 
ians that this epistle attained its widest circulation. In the latter part of 
the 8th century indeed, when the Second Council of Niczea met, it had found 
its way into some copies of St Paul’s Epistles}, But the denunciation of 
this Council seems to have been effective in securing its ultimate exclusion. 
We discover no traces of it in any extant Greek ms, with the very doubtful 
exception which has already been considered?, But in the Latin Church 
the case was different. St Jerome, as we saw, had pronounced very de- 
cidedly against it. Yet even his authority was not sufficient to stamp it 


1 Quoted above, p. 293, note 6. 2 See above, p. 279 84. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


out. At least as early as the sixth century it found a place in some copies 
of the Latin Bibles: and before the close of that century its genuineness was 
affirmed by perhaps the most influential theologian whom the Latin Church 
produced during the eleven centuries which elapsed between the age of 


295 


Jerome and Augustine and the era of the Reformation. Gregory the Great, Gregory 
did not indeed affirm its canonicity. He pronounced that the Church had the Great. 


restricted the canonical Epistles of St Paul to fourteen, and he found a 


mystical explanation of this limitation in the number itself, which was at- — 


tained by adding the number of the Commandments to the number of the 
Gospels and thus fitly represented the teaching of the Apostle which com- 
bines the two1. But at the same time he states that the Apostle wrote 
fifteen; and, though he does not mention the Epistle to the Laodiceans by 
name, there can be little doubt that he intended to include this as his 
fifteenth epistle, and that his words were rightly understood by subsequent 
writers as affirming its Pauline authorship. The influence of this great 


name is perceptible in the statements of later writers. Haymo of Halber- Haymo of 
stadt, who died a.p. 853, commenting on Col. iv. 16, says, The Apostle ‘ en- Halber- 
joins the Laodicean Epistle to be read to the Colossians, because though it stadt. 


is very short and is not reckoned in the Canon, yet still it has some use”’. 


And between two or three centuries later Hervéy of Dole (c. a.p. 1130), if it Hervey of 


be not Anselm of Laon’, commenting on this same passage, says: ‘Although Dole. 


the Apostle wrote this epistle also as his fifteenth or sixteenth‘, and it is 
established by Apostolic authority like the rest, yet holy Church does not 
reckon more than fourteen’, and he proceeds to justify this limitation of 


the Canon with the arguments and in the language of Gregory®. Others 


1 Greg. Magn. Mor. in Job. xxxv. 
§ 25 (111. p. 433, ed. Gallicc.) ‘Recte 
vita ecclesiae multiplicata per decem 
et quattuor computatur; quia utrum- 
que testamentum custodiens, et tam 
secundum Legis decalogum quam se- 
cundum quattuor Evangelii libros vi- 
vens, usque ad perfectionis culmen 
extenditur. Unde et Paulus aposto- 
lus quamvis epistolas quindecim scrip- 
serit, sancta tamen ecclesia non am- 
plius quam quatuordecim tenet, ut ex 
ipso epistolarum numero ostenderet 
quod doctor egregius Legis et Evange- 
lii secreta rimasset’. 

2 Patrol. Lat. oxvi. p. 765 (ed. 
Migne) ‘Et eam quae erat Laodicen- 
sium ideo praecipit Colossensibus legi, 
quia, licet perparva sit et in Canone 
non habeatur, aliquid tamen utilitatis 
habet’. He uses the expression ‘eam 
quae erat Laodicensium’, because rijy éx 
Aaodixelas was translated in the Latin 
Bible ‘eam quae Laodicensium est’. 

3 See Galatians p. 232 on the au- 
thorship of this commentary. 


4 A third Epistle to the Corinthians 
being perhaps reckoned as the 15th; 
see Fabric, Cod. Apocr. Nov, Test. 11, 
p. 866. ‘ 

5 Patrol. Lat. CLXXXI. p. 1355 8q. 
(ed. Migne) ‘et ea similiter epistola, 
quae Laodicensium est, i.e. quam ego 
Laodicensibus misi, legatur vobis. 
Quamvis et hanc epistolam quintam- 
decimam vel sextamdecimam aposto- 
lus scripserit, et auctoritas eam apo- 
stolica sicut caetera firmavit, sancta 
tamen ecclesia non amplius quam qua- 
tuordecim tenet, ut ex ipso epistola- 
rum numero ostenderet etc.’ At the 
end of the notes to the Colossians he 
adds, ‘Hucusque protenditur epistola 
quae missa est ad Colossenses. Con- 
gruum autem videtur ut propter noti- 
tiam legentium subjiciamus eam quae 
est ad Laodicenses directa; quam, ut 
diximus, in usu non habet ecclesia, 
Est ergo talis.’ Then follows the text 
of the Laodicean Epistle, but it is not 
annotated. 


296 


English 
Church. 


Aelfric. 


John of 
Salisbury. 


The epis- 
tle repu- 

diated by 
Lanfrane, 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


however did not confine themselves to the qualified recognition given to the 
epistle by the great Bishop of Rome. Gregory had carefully distinguished 
between genuineness and canonicity; but this important distinction was not 
seldom disregarded by later writers. In the English Church more especi- 
ally it was forgotten. Thus Aelfric abbot of Cerne, who wrote during the 
closing years of the tenth century, speaks as follows of St Paul: ‘Fifteen 
epistles wrote this one Apostle to the nations by him converted unto the 
faith : which are large books in the Bible and make much for our amend- 
ment, if we follow his doctrine that was teacher of the Gentiles’. He then 
gives a list of the Apostle’s writings, which closes with ‘one to Philemon 
and one to the Laodiceans; fifteen in all as loud as thunder to faithful 
people?’, Again, nearly two centuries later John of Salisbury, likewise 
writing on the Canon, reckons ‘Fifteen epistles of Paul included in one 
volume, though it be the wide-spread and common opinion of nearly all that 
there are only fourteen; ten to churches and four to individuals: supposing 
that the one addressed to the Hebrews is to be reckoned among the Epistles 
of Paul, as Jerome the doctor of doctors seems to lay down in his preface, 
where he refuteth the cavils of those who contended that it was not Paul’s. 
But the fifteenth is that which is addressed to the Church of the Laodi- 
ceans; and though, as Jerome saith, it be rejected by all, nevertheless was 
it written by the Apostle. Nor is this opinion assumed on the conjecture 
of others, but it is confirmed by the testimony of the Apostle himself: for 
he maketh mention of it in the Epistle to the Colossians in these words, 
When this epistle shall have been read among you, etc. (Col. iv. 16)”, 
Aclfric and John are the typical theologians of the Church in this country 
in their respective ages. The Conquest effected a revolution in ecclesiasti- 
cal and theological matters. The Old English Church was separated from 
the Anglo-Norman Church in not a few points both of doctrine and of disci- 
pline. Yet here we find the representative men of learning in both agreed 
on this one point—the authorship and canonicity of the Epistle to the 
Laodiceans. From the language of John of Salisbury however it appears 
that such was not the common verdict at least in his age, and that on this 
point the instinct of the many was more sound than the learning of the few. 
Nor indeed was it the undisputed opinion even of the learned in this coun- 
try during this interval. The first Norman Archbishop, Lanfranc, an Italian 
by birth and education, explains the passage in the Colossian Epistle as 
referring to a letter written by the Laodiceans to the Apostle, and adds that 


1 ASaxon Treatise concerning theOld rum dissolvens argutias qui eam Pauli 


Caeterum 


and New Testament by Ailfricus Abbas, 
p- 28 (ed. W. L’Isle, London 1623). 

2 Joann. Sarisb. Epist. 143 (1. p. 210 
ed. Giles) ‘Epistolae Pauli quindecim 
uno volumine comprehensae, licet sit 
vulgata et fere omnium communis 
opinio non esse nisi quatuordecim, 
decem ad ecclesias, quatuor ad perso- 
nas; si tamen illa quae ad Hebraeos 
est connumeranda est epistolis Pauli, 
quod in praefatione ejus astruere vide- 
tur doctorum doctor Hieronymus, illo- 


non esse contendebant. 
quintadecima est illa quae ecclesiae 
Laodicensium scribitur; et licet, ut ait 
Hieronymus, ab omnibus explodatur, 
tamen ab apostolo scripta est: neque 
sententia haec de aliorum praesumitur 
opinione sed ipsius apostoli testimonio 
roboratur. Meminit enim ipsius in 
epistola ad Colossenses his verbis, 
Quum lecta fuerit apud vos haec epi- 
stola, etc.’ 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS, 297 


otherwise ‘there would be more than thirteen Epistles of Paul!’. Thus 
he tacitly ignores the Epistle to the Laodiceans, with which he can hardly 
have been unacquainted. 

Indeed the safest criterion of the extent to which this opinion prevailed, Occur- 
is to be found in the manuscripts. At all ages from the sixth to the rence in 
fifteenth century we have examples of its occurrence among the Pauline ae 
Epistles and most frequently without any marks which imply doubt respect- countries. 
ing its canonicity. These instances are more common in proportion to 
the number of extant Mss in the earlier epoch than in the later. In one 
of the three or four extant authorities for the Old Latin Version of the 
Pauline Epistles it has a place*. In one of the two most ancient copies of 
Jerome’s revised Vulgate it is found’. Among the first class mss of 
this latter version its insertion is almost as common as its omission. This 
phenomenon moreover is not confined to any one country. Italy, Spain, 

France, Ireland, England, Germany, Switzerland—all the great nations of 
Latin Christendom—contribute examples of early manuscripts in which 
this epistle has a place®. 

And, when the Scriptures came to be translated into the vernacular Versions. 
languages of modern Europe, this epistle was not uncommonly included. Albigen- 
Thus we meet with an Albigensian version, which is said to belong to the 5!an- 
thirteenth century®. Thus too it is found in the Bohemian language, both Bohemian, 
in manuscript and in the early printed Bibles, in various recensions’, 

And again an old German translation is extant, which, judging from lin- German, 
guistic peculiarities, cannot be assigned to a later date than about the 
fourteenth century, and was printed in not less than fourteen editions of 

the German Bible at the close of the fifteenth and the beginning of the 
sixteenth centuries, before Luther’s version appeared®. In the early Eng- English, 
lish Bibles too it has a place. Though it was excluded by both Wycliffe and 

Purvey, yet it did not long remain untranslated and appears in two 
different and quite independent versions, in Mss written before the middle 

of the fifteenth century®. The prvlogue prefixed to the commoner of the 

two forms runs as follows: 


1 Patrol. Lat. cu. p. 331 (ed. Migne) 
on Col. iv. 16 ‘Haec si esset apostoli, 
ad Laodicenses diceret, non Laodicen- 
sium; et plusquam tredecim essent 
epistolae Pauli’. We should perhaps 
read xiiii for xiii, ‘quatuordecim’ for 
‘tredecim’, as Lanfranc is not likely 
to have questioned the Pauline author- 


written within a few years of the Co- 
dex Amiatinus. 

5 The list of mss given above, p. 282 
8q., will substantiate this statement. 

6 An account of this ms, which is at 
Lyons, is given by Reuss in the Revue 
de Théologie v. p. 334 (Strassb. 1852). 
He ascribes the translation of the New 


ship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 

2 The proportion however is very 
different in different collections. Inthe 
Cambridge University Library I found 
the epistle in four only out of some 
thirty mss which I inspected; whereas 
in the Lambeth Library the proportion 
was far greater. 

3 The Speculum of Mai, see above, 
p. 282. 

4 The Codex Fuldensis, which was 


Testament to the 13th century, and 
dates the ms a little later. 

7 This version is printed by Anger, 
p. 170 sq. 

8 See Anger, p. 149 8q., p. 166 8q. 

9 These two versions are printed in 
Lewis’s New Testament translated by 
J. Wiclif (1731) p-99 8q.,and in Forshall 
and Madden’s Wycliffite Versions of 
the Holy Bible (1850) Iv. p. 438 sq. 
They are also given by Anger p. 168 sq. 


298 


English 
prologue. 


Two Ver- 
sions of 
the epis- 
tle. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


‘Laodicensis ben also Colocenses, as tweye townes and oo peple in 


maners. 
and disceyuede manye. 


These ben of Asie, and among hem hadden be false apostlis, 
Therfore the postle bringith hem to mynde of 


his conuersacion and trewe preching of the gospel, and excitith hem to be 


stidfast in the trewe witt and loue of Crist, and to be of 00 wil. 


But this 


pistil is not in comyn Latyn bookis, and therfor it was but late translatid 


into Englisch tunge!’ 


The two forms of the epistle in its English dress are as follows”. The 
yersion on the left hand is extant only in a single ms; the other, which oc- 
cupies the right column, is comparatively common. 


‘Poul, apostle, not of men, ne 
bi man, but bi Jhesu Crist, to 
the britheren that ben of Lao- 
dice, grace to 30u, and pees of 
God the fadir, and of the Lord 
Jhesu Crist. Gracis I do to Crist 
bi al myn orisoun, that 3e be 
dwellinge in him and lastinge, bi 
the biheest abidinge in the dai 
of doom. Ne he ynordeynede vs 
of sum veyn speche feynynge, 
that vs ouerturne fro the sothfast- 
nesse of the gospel that of me 
is prechid. Also now schal God 
do hem leuynge, and doynge of 
blessdnesse of werkis, which heelthe 
of lyf is. And now openli ben 
my boondis, whiche I suffre in 
Crist Jhesu, in whiche I glad 
and ioie. And that is to me 
heelthe euerlastynge, that that I 
dide with oure preieris, and my- 
nystringe the Holy Spirit, bi lijf 


(1843), who takes the rarer form from 
Lewis and the other from a Dresden 
ms. Dr Westcott also has printed the 
commoner version in his Canon, p. 457 
(ed. 4), from Forshall and Madden. 

Of one of these two versions For- 
shall and Madden give a collation 
of several mss; the other is taken from 
a single ms (1. p. xxxii), Lewis does 
not state whence he derived the rarer 
of these two versions, but there can be 
little doubt that it came from the same 
Ms Pepys. 2073 (belonging to Magd. Coll. 
Cambridge) from which it was taken by 
Forshall and Madden (t. p. lvii); since 
he elsewhere mentions using this Ms 
(p. 104). The version is not known to 


‘Poul,apostle,not of men,ne by man, 
but bi Jhesu Crist, to the britheren 
that ben at Laodice, grace to 30u, and 
pees of God the fadir, and of the 
Lord Jhesu Crist. I do thankyngis 
to my God bial my preier, that 3e be 
dwelling and lastyng in him, abiding 
the biheest in the day of doom. For 
neithir the veyn spekyng of summe 
vnwise men hath lettide 30u, the 
whiche wolden turne 30u fro the 
treuthe of the gospel, that is prechid 
of me. And now hem that ben of 
me, to the profiz3t of truthe of the 
gospel, God schal make disseruyng, 
and doyng benygnyte of werkis, and 
helthe of everlasting lijf. And now 
my boondis ben open, which Y suffre 
in Crist Jhesu, in whiche Y glade and 
ioie. And that is to me to euerlast- 
yng helthe, that this same thing be 
doon by 30ure preiers, and mynys- 
tryng of the Holi Goost, either bi 


exist in any other. Forshall and Mad- 
den given the date of the ms as about 
1440. 

1 From Forshall and Madden, rv. p. 
438. The earliest mss which contain 
the common version of the Laodicean 
Epistle (to which this prologue is pre- 
fixed) date about a.p. 1430. 

2 Printed from Forshall and Madden 
l.c. I am assured by those who are 
thoroughly conversant with old Eng- 
lish, that they can discern no differ- 
ence of date in these two versions, 
and that they both belong probably to 
the early years of the 15th century. 
The rarer version is taken from a bet- 
ter Latin text than the other. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


or bi deeth. It is forsothe to me 
lijf into Crist, and to die ioie 
withouten eende. In vs he schal 
do his merci, that 3e haue the 
same louynge, and that 3e be of 
o wil. Therfore, derlyngis, as 3e 
han herd in presence of me, 
hold 3e, and do 3e in drede of 
God; and it schal be to 30u lijf 
withouten eend. It is forsothe 
God that worchith in vs. And do 
3e withouten ony withdrawinge, 
what soeuere 3e doon. And that 
it is, derlyngis, ioie 3e in Crist, 
and flee 3e maad foul in clay, 
Alle 30ure axingis ben open anentis 
God, and be 3e fastned in the 
witt of Crist. And whiche been 
hool, and sooth, and chast, and 
rightwijs, and louable, do 3e; and 
whiche herden and take in herte, 
hold 3e; and it schal be to jou 
pees. Holi men greeten 30u weel, 
in the grace of oure Lord Jhesu 
Crist, with the Holi Goost. And 
do 3e that pistil of Colosensis to 
be red to 30u. Amen. 


lijf, either bi deeth. Forsothe to me 
it is lijf to lyue in Crist, and to die 
ioie. And his mercy schal do in 30u 
the same thing, that 3e moun haue 
the same loue, and that 3e be of oo 
will. Therfore, 3e weel biloued 
britheren, holde 3e, and do 3e in the 
dreede of God, as 3e han herde 
the presence of me; and lijf schal 
be to 30u withouten eende. Sotheli 
it is God that worchith in 30u. And, 
my weel biloued britheren, do 3e 
without eny withdrawyng what euer 
thingis 3e don. Joie 3e in Crist, and 
eschewe 3e men defoulid in lucre, 
either foul wynnyng. Be alle 30ure 
askyngis open anentis God, and be 
3e stidefast in the witt of Crist. And 
do 3e tho thingis that ben hool, and 
trewe, and chaast, and iust, and able 
to be loued; and kepe 3e in herte 
tho thingis that 3e haue herd and 
take; and pees schal be to 30u. Alle 
holi men greten 30u weel. The grace 
of oure Lord Jhesu Crist be with 
30ure spirit. And do 3e that pistil 
of Colocensis to be red to 30u. 


299 


Thus for more than nine centuries this forged epistle hovered about Revival of 
the doors of the sacred Canon, without either finding admission or being learning 
peremptorily excluded. At length the revival of learning dealt its death- 


blow to this as to so many other spurious pretensions. 


As a rule, Roman 


and con- 
demyation 


of the 


Catholics and Reformers were equally strong in their condemnation of its epistle. 
worthlessness. The language of Hrasmus more especially is worth quoting 
for its own sake, and must not be diluted by translation : 

‘Nihil habet Pauli praeter voculas aliquot ex caeteris ejus epistolis Strictures 
mendicatas...... Non est cujusvis hominis Paulinum pectus effingere. Tonat, of Eras- 
fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus, At haec, praeterquam quod brevis- 
sima est, quam friget, quam jacet!...Quanquam quid attinet argumentari ? 
Legat, qui volet, epistolam...... Nullum argumentum efficacius persuaserit 
eam non esse Pauli quam ipsa epistola. Et si quid mihi naris est, ejus- 
dem est opificis qui naeniis suis omnium veterum theologorum omnia 
scripta contaminavit, conspurcavit, perdidit, ac praecipue ejus qui prae 
caeteris indignus erat ea contumelia, nempe D. Hieronymi},’ 


1 On Col. iv. 16. Erasmus is too 
hard upon the writer of this letter, 
when he charges him with such a mass 
of forgeries. He does not explain how 


this hypothesis is consistent with the 
condemnation of the Epistle to the La- 
odiceans in Hieron. Vir. Ill. 5 (quoted 
above p. 293). 


mus. 


300 


Excep- 
tions, 


Pretorius. 


Stapleton. 


EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


But some eccentric spirits on both sides were still found to maintain its 
genuineness. Thus on the one hand the Lutheran Steph. Praetorius prefaces 
his edition of this epistle (A.D. 1595) with the statement that he ‘restores 
it to the Christian Church’; he gives his opinion that it was written ‘ either 
by the Apostle himself or by some other Apostolic man’: he declares 
that to himself it is ‘redolent of the spirit and grace of the most divine 
Paul’; and he recommends younger teachers of the Gospel to ‘try their 
strength in explaining it’, that thus ‘accustoming themselves gradually 
to the Apostolic doctrine they may extract thence a flavour sweeter than 
ambrosia and nectar!’ On the other hand the Jesuit Stapleton was 
not less eager in his advocacy of this miserable cento. To him its genuine- 
ness had a controversial value. Along with several other apocryphal 
writings which he accepted in like manner, it was important in his eyes 
as showing that the Church had authority to exclude even Apostolic 
writings from the Canon, if she judged fit?» But such phenomena were 
quite abnormal. The dawn of the Reformation epoch had effectually 
scared away this ghost of a Pauline epistle, which (we may confidently 
hope) has been laid for ever and will not again be suffered to haunt the 
mind of the Church. 


1 Pauli Apostoli ad Laodicenses 
Epistola, Latine et Germanice, Ham- 
burg. 1595, of which the preface is 
given in Fabricius Cod. Apocr. Nov. 
Test. u. p. 867. It is curious that 
the only two arguments against its 
genuineness which he thinks worthy 
of notice are (1) Its brevity; which he 
answers by appealing to the Epistle to 
Philemon; and (2) Its recommenda- 
tion of works (‘quod scripsit opera 
esse facienda quae sunt salutis aeter- 
nae’); which he explains to refer to 


works that proceed of faith. 

2 See Bp. Davenant on Col. iv. 16: 
‘Detestanda Stapletonis opinio, qui 
ipsius Pauli epistolam esse statuit, 
quam omnes patres ut adulterinam et 
insulsam repudiarunt; nec sanior con- 
clusio, quam inde deducere voluit, 
posse nimirum ecclesiam germanam 
et veram apostoli Pauli epistolam 
pro sua authoritate e Canone exclu. 
dere’. So also Whitaker Disputation 
on Scripture passim (see the references 
given above, p. 275, note 3). 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


a a PH, My : 
be ota libed 


er oe 





INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE. 


Apostle’s writings. It is the only strictly private letter erie 


which has been preserved. The Pastoral Epistles indeed are °Piste- 
addressed to individuals, but they discuss important matters 

of Church discipline and government. Evidently they were 
intended to be read by others besides those to whom they 

are immediately addressed. On the other hand the letter 
before us does not once touch upon any question of public 
interest. It is addressed apparently to a layman. It is wholly 
occupied with an incident of domestic life. The occasion 
which called it forth was altogether common-place. It is 

only one sample of numberless letters which must have been 
written to his many friends and disciples by one of St Paul’s 
eager temperament and warm affections, in the course of a 

long and chequered life. Yet to ourselves this fragment, which 

has been rescued, we know not how, from the wreck of a large Its value. 
and varied correspondence, is infinitely precious. Nowhere is 

the social influence of the Gospel more strikingly exerted ; 
nowhere does the nobility of the Apostle’s character receive 

a more vivid illustration than in this accidental pleading on 
behalf of a runaway slave. 

The letter introduces us to an ordinary household in a The 
small town in Phrygia. Four members of it are mentioned Pyarossed. 
by name, the father, the mother, the son, and the slave, 

1. The head of the family bears a name which, for good or 1. Phite- 
for evil, was not unknown in connexion with Phrygian story. as 


pe Epistle to Philemon holds a unique place among tho Unique 


304 


Occur- 
rence of 
the name 
in Phry- 
gia. 


This Phi- 
lemon a 
Colossian 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


The legend of Philemon and Baucis, the aged peasants who 
entertained not angels but gods unawares, and were rewarded 
by their divine guests for their homely hospitality and their 
conjugal love’, is one of the most attractive in Greek mytho- 
logy, and contrasts favourably with many a revolting tale in 
which the powers of Olympus are represented as visiting this 
lower earth. It has a special interest too for the Apostolic 
history, because it suggests an explanation of the scene at 
Lystra, when the barbarians would have sacrificed to the 
Apostles, imagining that the same two gods, Zeus and Hermes, 
had once again deigned to visit, in the likeness of men, those 
regions which they had graced of old by their presence*, Again, 
in historical times we read of one Philemon who obtained an 
unenviable notoriety at Athens by assuming the nights of 
Athenian citizenship, though a Phrygian and apparently a 
slave *, Otherwise the name is not distinctively Phrygian. It 
does not occur with any special frequency in the inscriptions 
belonging to this country ; and though several persons bearing 
this name rose to eminence in literary history, not one, so far 
as we know, was a Phrygian. 

The Philemon with whom we are concerned was a native, 
or at least an inhabitant, of Colosse. This appears from the 
fact that his slave is mentioned as belonging to that place. It 
may be added also, in confirmation of this view, that in one of 
two epistles written and despatched at the same time St Paul 


bant’. 


1 Ovid. Met. vii. 626 sq. ‘Jupiter 
hue, specie mortali, cumque parente 
Venit Atlantiades positis caducifer alis’ 
etc. 

2 Acts xiv. 11 of Geol duorwOévyres 
dv@pwHrots katéBnoav mpds nuas K.T.X- 
There are two points worth observing 
in the Phrygian legend, as illustrating 
the Apostolic history. (1) It is a 
miracle, which opens the eyes of the 
peasant couple to the divinity of their 
guests thus disguised; (2) The im- 
mediate effect of this miracle is their 
attempt to sacrifice to their divine 
visitors, ‘dis hospitibus mactare para- 


The familiarity with this 
beautiful story may have suggested to 
the barbarians of Lystra, whose ‘ Ly- 
caonian speech’ was not improbably 
a dialect of Phrygian, that the same 
two gods, Zeus and Hermes, had again 
visited this region on an errand at 
once of beneficence and of vengeance, 
while at the same time it would prompt 
them to conciliate the deities by a 
similar mode of propitiation, 70edov 
Ovew. 

3 Aristoph. Av. 762 ef d& rvyxdve 
ris Ov Ppvé...dpuylros Spuis évOds tora, 
Tod Pirypovos yévous. 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 305 


announces the restoration of Onesimus to his master, while in 
the other he speaks of this same person as revisiting Colossze ’. 
On the other hand it would not be safe to lay any stress on 
the statement of Theodoret that Philemon’s house was still 
standing at Colossze when he wrote’, for traditions of this kind 
have seldom any historical worth. 

Philemon had been converted by St Paul himself*. At converted 
what time or under what circumstances he received his first al 
lessons in the Gospel, we do not know: but the Apostle’s long 
residence at Ephesus naturally suggests itself as the period 
when he was most likely to have become acquainted with a 
citizen of Colossse *. 

Philemon proved not unworthy of his spiritual parentage, His evan- 
Though to Epaphras belongs the chief glory of preaching the ot 
Gospel at Colosse*, his labours were well seconded by Phi- 
lemon. The title of ‘fellow-labourer, conferred upon him by 
the Apostle *, is a noble testimony to his evangelical zeal.. Like 
Nymphas in the neighbouring Church of Laodicea’, Philemon 
had placed his house at the disposal of the Christians at Colossze 
for their religious and social gatherings*®. Like Gaius’, to 
whom the only other private letter in the Apostolic Canon is 
addressed, he was generous in his hospitalities. All those and wide 


A ; : ‘ . _ hospita- 
with whom he came in contact spoke with gratitude of his lity. i 


1 Compare Col. iv. 9g with Philem. designates Philemon’s own family (in- 


II sq. 

2 Theodoret in his preface to the 
epistle says modu 6é elye [6 Pirnuwr] 
Tas Koddooas’ cat % olkia 62 avrod 
méxpt Tod mapévros peuévynxe. This is 
generally taken to mean that Phile- 
mon’s house was still standing, when 
Theodoret wrote. This may be the 
correct interpretation, but the language 
is not quite explicit. 

3 ver. 19. 

4 See above, p. 30 sq. 

5 See above, p. 31 sq. 

8 ver. I ouvepy@ Tudar. 

7 Col. iv. 15. 

8 ver. 2 77 Kar’ olkév cov éxk\noig. 
The Greek commentators, Chrysostom 
and Theodoret, suppose that St Paul 


COL. 


cluding his slaves) by this honourable 
title of éxxXnola, in order to interest 
them in his petition. This is plainly 
wrong. See the note on Col. iv. 15. 

#2 JOR. 5 8G: 

10T take the view that the xvupla 
addressed in the Second Epistle of St 
John is some church personified, as 
indeed the whole tenour of the epistle 
seems to imply: see esp. vv. 4, 7 8q. 
The salutation to the ‘elect lady’ 
(ver. 1) from her ‘elect sister’ (ver. 
15) will then be a greeting sent to 
one church from another; just as in 
1 Peter the letter is addressed at the 
outset éxAexrots IIévrou k.r.d. (i. 1) and 
contains at the close a salutation from 
4 év BaBudanu ouverdexTH (V. 13). 


20 


306 


Legendary kindly attentions’. 
tain knowledge. 


martyr- 
dom. 


2. Apphia 
his wife, 


A strictly 
Phrygian 
name, 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


Of his subsequent career we have no cer- 
Legendary story indeed promotes him to the 
bishopric of Colossze*, and records how he was martyred in his 
native city under Nero*®. But this tradition or fiction is not 
entitled to any credit. All that we really know of Philemon is 
contained within this epistle itself. 

2. Itisasafe inference from the connexion of the names 
that Apphia was the wife of Philemon*. The commentators 
assume without misgiving that we have here the familiar 
Roman name Appia, though they do not explain the intrusion 
of the aspirate®. This seems to be a mistake. The word occurs 
very frequently on Phrygian inscriptions as a proper name, and 
is doubtless of native origin. At Aphrodisias and Philadelphia, 
at Eumenia and Apamea Cibotus, at Stratonicea, at Philo- 
melium, at Aizani and Cotizum and Doryleum, at almost all 
the towns far and near, which were either Phrygian or subject 
to Phrygian influences, and in which any fair number of inscrip- 
tions has been preserved, the name is found. If no example 
has been discovered at Colosse itself, we must remember that 
not a single proper name has been preserved on any monu- 
mental inscription at this place. It is generally written either 
Apphia or Aphphia®; more rarely Aphia, which is perhaps 


Like other direct statements of this 
same writer, as for instance that the 


LAR ee 
2 Apost. Const. vii. 46 ris 5@ ev 


Povyla Aaodixelas [érloxomros]”"Apxirmos, 
Kodaccoaéwy 5¢ Pirnuwr, Bepolas 5¢ r7s 
kata Maxedovlay ’Ovnoimos 6 Pidjpovos, 
The Greek Menaea however make Phi- 
lemon bishop of Gaza; see Tillemont 
I. p. 574, note Ixvi. 

3 See Tillemont 1. pp. 290, 574, for 
the references. 

4 Boeckh Corp. Inser. 3814 Nelk- 
avépos kal ’Addla yur) airod. In the 
following inscriptions also a wife bear- 
ing the name Apphia (Aphphia, Aphia) 
or Apphion (Aphphion, Aphion) is 
mentioned in connexion with her hus- 
band ; 2720, 2782, 2836, 3446, 2775 
b, c, d, 2837 b, 3849, 3902 m, 3962, 
4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3846 217, etc. 

M. Renan (Saint Paul p. 360) says 
‘Appia, diaconesse de cette ville.’ 


Colossians sent a deputation to St 
Paul (L’Antéchrist p. go), this asser- 
tion rests on no authority. 

5 They speak of "Ardila as a softened 
form of the Latin Appia, and quote 
Acts xxviii. 15, where however the form 
is ’Ammlov. Even Ewald writes the 
word Appia. 

8 *Amgla, no. 2782, 2835, 2950, 
3432, 3446, 2775 b, ¢, d, 2837 b, 3902 
m, 3962, 4124, 4145: "Addla, no. 3814, 
4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3827 1, 3846 z, 
3846 z7, So far as I could trace any 
law, the form ’A¢g@la is preferred in 
the northern and more distant towns 
like Aizani and Cotiaum, while ’Ard¢la 
prevails in the southern towns in the 
more immediate neighbourhood of 
Colosse, such as Aphrodisias. This 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 307 


due merely to the carelessness of the stonecutters'. But, so far Its affini- 
as I have observed, it always preserves the aspirate. Its dimi- ne 
nutive is Apphion or Aphphion or Aphion*. The allied form 
Aphphias or Aphias, also a woman’s name, is found, though 

less commonly*; and we likewise frequently meet with the 
shorter form Apphe or Aphphe*. The man’s name correspond- 

ing to Apphia is Apphianos, but this is rare®, The root would 

a} pear to be some Phrygian term of endearment or relation- 

ship®. It occurs commonly in connexion with other Phrygian and ana- 
names of a like stamp, more especially Ammia, which under- Buy 
goes the same modifications of form, Amia, Ammias, Ammion 

or Amion, Ammiane or Ammiana, with the corresponding 


masculine Ammianos’, 


accords with the evidence of our Mss, 
in which ’Ar@la is the best supported 
form, though ’A¢¢/a is found in some. 
In Theod. Mops. (Cramevr’s Cat. p. 105) 
it becomes ’Audia by a common cor- 
ruption; and Old Latin copies write 
the dative Apphiadi from the allied 
form Apphias. 

The most interesting of these in- 
scriptions mentioning the name is no. 
2782 at Aphrodisias, where there is a 
notice of @r.’Amdgias dpxrepelas ’Aclas, 
bentpos Kal ddeXPjs kal uduuns cuvKrn- 
TLKQV, HiNowaTpLOOS K.T.N. 

1 no. 2720, 3827. 

2*Amrgiov or “Addioy 2733, 2836, 
3295, 3849, 3902 m, 4207; “Aduov, 
3846 254 and”Agdeov 3846 z*!; and even 
“Argew and “Addew, 3167, 3278. In 
3902 m the mother’s name is ’Ar¢dla 
and the daughter’s "Amguov. 

3 "Agdlas 3697, 3983; "Adlas 3870. 

“"Adgdn 3816, -3390, 41433 “Ardy 
3796, 4122. 

5 It is met with at the neighbouring 
town of Hierapolis, in the form ’Ar- 
giaves no. 3911. It also occurs on 
coins of not very distant parts of Asia 
Minor, being written either ’Ardlavos 
or ’Ad¢lavos; Mionnet 11. p. 179, 184, 
Iv. p. 65, 67, Suppl. vi. p. 293, VII 
P. 365. 

§ Suidas “Arga ddeXpns xal dded- 
gov droxbpioua, and so Bekk. Anecd. 
p. 441. Hustath, Il. p. 565 says argav 


With these we may also compare 


Thy adeXdhv "Arrixds pdvn 7] adedpy 
elrot av, kal mdmrmav Tov marépa pdvos 
6 mats K.T.X., and he adds loréoy 8é re 
€x Tov ws éppéOn drga yx veu Kal 7d 
amor, vroKkbpicua dv epwuévns* tives 
5é kal 73 dra brokdpicud pacw ’Arri- 
xov. These words were found in writers 
of Attic comedy (Pollux iii. 74 4 rapa 
Tois véois Kwpwdois amrdia Kal amdlov 
kal ampdpiuv; comp. Xenarchus ods 
bev yépovras bvras émikadovmevar marpl- 
dua, Tovs 8 arddpia, rods vewrépous, 
Meineke Fragm. Com. 11. p. 617): 
and doubtless they were heard com- 
monly in Attic homes. But were they 
not learnt in the nursery from Phry- 
gian slaves? ’Am¢dpiov appears in two 
inscriptions almost as a proper name, 
2637 Kdavila argdpiov, 3277 arddprov 
Aoddav7. In no. 4207 (at Telmissus) 
we have ‘EXévn 7 kal “Adguov, so that 
it seems sometimes to have been em- 
ployed side by side with a Greek name; 
comp. no. 39124 Ilamlas...6 kadovmevos 
Acoyévns, quoted above, p. 48. This 
will account for the frequency of the 
names, Apphia, Apphion, etc. In 
Theocr, xv. 13 we have argis, and in 
Callim. Hym. Dian. 6 dra, as a term 
of endearment applied to a father, 

7 This appears from the fact that 
Ammias and Ammianos appear some- 
times as the names of mother and son 
respectively in the same inscriptions; 
e.g. 3846 28%, 3847 k, 3882 i, 


Hg 8 aa 


308 


Not to be 
confused 
with the 
Latin 
Appia. 


Her share 
in the 
letter. 


3. Archip- 
pus, the 
son. 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


Tatia, Tatias, Tation, Tatiane or Tatiana, Tatianos. Similar 
too is the name Papias or Pappias, with the lengthened form 
Papianos, to which corresponds the feminine Papiane*. So 
again we have Nannas or Nanas, Nanna or Nana, with their 
derivatives, in these Phrygian inscriptions*, There is a tend- 
ency in some of the allied forms of Apphia or Aphphia to drop 
the aspirate so that they are written with a pp, more especially 
in Appe*, but not in the word itself; nor have I observed con- 
versely any disposition to write the Roman name Appia with an 
aspirate, Apphia or Aphphia*. Even if such a disposition could 
be proved, the main point for which I am contending can 
hardly be questioned. With the overwhelming evidence of the 
inscriptions before us, it is impossible to doubt that Apphia is 
a native Phrygian name’*. 

Of this Phrygian matron we know nothing more than can 
be learnt from this epistle. The tradition or fiction which 
represents her as martyred together with her husband may be 
safely disregarded, St Paul addresses her as a Christian‘, 
Equally with her husband she had been aggrieved by the mis- 
conduct of their slave Onesimus, and equally with him she 
might interest herself in the penitent’s future well-being. 

3. With less confidence, but still with a reasonable degree 
of probability, we may infer that Archippus, who is likewise 
mentioned in the opening salutation, was a son” of Philemon 


1 Qn the name Papias or Pappias 
see above, p. 48. 

2 See Boeckh Corp. Inscr. m1. p. 
108s for the names Navas, etc. 

3 We have not only the form “Army 
several times (e.g. 3827 x, 3846 p, 
3846 x, 3846 2%, etc.); but also*Awmns 
3827 g, 3846 n, 3846 277, still as a 
woman’s name. These all occur in 
the same neighbourhood, at Cotimum 
and Aizani. I have not noticed any 
instance of this phenomenon in the 
names Apphia, Apphion; though pro- 
bably, where Roman influences were 
especially strong, there would be a 
tendency totransform a Phrygian name 
into a Roman, e. g. Apphia into Appia, 
and Apphianus into Appianus, 


4 In the Greek historians of Rome 
for instance the personal name is al- 
ways “Amos and the road ’Amrmla; so 
too in Acts xxviii. 15 it is ’Amzlov 
Popov. 

5 The point to be observed is that 
examples of these names are thickest 
in the heart of Phrygia, that they di- 
minish in frequency as Phrygian in- 
fluence hecomes weaker, and that they 
almost, though not entirely, disappear 
in other parts of the Greek and Roman 
world, 

6 ver, 2 77 ddekpq. See the note. 

7 So Theodore of Mopsuestia. But 
Chrysostom érepov riva tows pldrov, and 
Theodoret 6 6¢ “Apxermos tiv didacKka- 
Mav atrav éremlorevto. 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 309 


and Apphia. The inscriptions do not exhibit the name in 

any such frequency, either in Phrygia or in the surrounding dis- 

tricts, as to suggest that it was characteristic of these parts’, 

Our Archippus held some important office in the Church’; His office 
but what this was, we are not told. St Paul speaks of it as 

a ‘ministry’ (dvaxovia). Some have interpreted the term tech- 

nically as signifying the diaconate; but St Paul’s emphatic 
message seems to imply a more important position than this. 

Others again suppose that he succeeded Epaphras as bishop of 
Colosse, when Epaphras left his native city to join the Apostle 

at Rome*; but the assumption of a regular and continuous 
episcopate in such a place as Colosse at this date seems to 
involve an anachronism. More probable than either is the 

Or perhaps he held 

a missionary charge, and belonged to the order of ‘ evangelists *’ 

Where 

was he exercising this ministry, whatever it may have been ? 

At Colosse, or at Laodicea? His connexion with Philemon and abode, 
would suggest the former place. But in the Epistle to the 
Colossians his name is mentioned immediately after the salu- 

tation to the Laodiceans and the directions affecting that 
Church; and this fact seems to connect him with Laodicea. Laodicea, 
On the whole this appears to be the more probable solution ®, ae 
Laodicea was within walking distance of Colosse® Archippus ©0S8®- 


hypothesis which makes him a presbyter. 


Another question too arises respecting Archippus. 


must have been in constant communication with his parents, 
who lived there; and it was therefore quite natural that, 
writing to the father and mother, St Paul should mention the 
son’s name also in the opening address, though he was not on 
the spot. An early tradition, if it be not a critical inference 


1 It occurs in two Smyrnean in- 
scriptions, no. 3143, 3224. 

2 Col. iv. 27 Brére tiv Staxoviay jv 
mapédaBes év Kuply, tva atryy wAnpors. 

3 So the Ambrosian Hilary on Col. 
iv. 17. 

4 Ephes. iv. rr bears testimony to 
the existence of the office of evangelist 
at this date. 

5 It is adopted by Theodore of 


Mopsuestia. On the other hand Theo- 
doret argues against this view on 
critical grounds; tues épacay rotrov 
Aaodixelas yeyerqcbar diddoKadov, add’ 
 mpos Pirnwova émiorory dSiidoKer ws 
év KoNaccats otros @ke 7H yap B- 
Ajpove Kal Tovrov ouvrarres: but he 
does not allege any traditional support 
for his own opinion, 
6 See above, pp. 2, 15. 


310 


His eareer. 


4. Onesi- 
mus. 


A servile 
name. 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


from the allusion in the Colossian letter, makes him bishop not 
of Colosse, but of Laodicea’. 

Of the apprehensions which the Apostle seems to have 
entertained respecting Archippus, I have already spoken*. It 
is not improbable that they were suggested by his youth and 
mexperience. St Paul here addresses him as his ‘fellow- 
soldier *” but we are not informed on what spiritual campaigns 
they had served in company. Of his subsequent career we 
have no trustworthy evidence. 
having suffered martyrdom at Colosse with his father and 
mother. 

4. But far more important to the history of Christianity 
than the parents or the son of the family, is the servant. The 
name QOnesimus was very commonly borne by slaves, Like 
other words signifying utility, worth, and so forth, it naturally 
lent itself to this purpose‘. Accordingly the inscriptions offer 
a very large number of examples in which it appears as the 
name of some slave or freedman*®; and even where this is 
not the case, the accompaniments frequently show that the 
person was of servile descent, though he might never himself 
have been a slave®. Indeed it occurs more than once as a 
fictitious name for a slave’, a fact which points significantly to 


Tradition represents him as 


1 Apost. Const. vii. 46 quoted above, 
p. 306, note r. 

7 See p. 42. 

3 yer. 2 7G ouvoTpariwry juwy. See 
the note. 

4 e.g. Chresimus, Chrestus, One- 
siphorus, Symphorus, Carpus, etc. So 
too the corresponding female names 
Onesime,Chreste,Sympherusa,etc.: but 
more commonly the women’s names 
are of a different cast of meaning, 
Arescusa, Prepusa, Terpusa, Thallusa, 
Tryphosa, etc. 

5 e.g. in the Corp. Inscr. Lat, 111. 
p. 223, nO. 2146, P. 359,00. 2723, PD. 
986, no. 6107 (where it is spelled Ho- 
nesimus); and in Muratori, cc. 6, 
DEXIX. 5, CMLXVIII. 4, MIII. 2, MDXVIII. 2, 
MDXXIII. 4, MDLI. 9, MDLXXI. 5, MDLXXV. 
I, MDxc1l. 8, MDXOVI. 7, MROVI. 2, MDCX. 
19, MDCXIY. 17, 39; and the corre- 


sponding female name Onesime in 
MCCKXXIX. 12, MDXLVI. 6, MDCXII. 9. 
A more diligent search than I have 
made would probably increase the 
number of examples very largely. 

8 e.g. Corp. Inscr, Lat. ul. p. 238, 
no. 1467, D. M. M. AVR . ONESIMO . CAR- 
PION . AVG. LIB. TABVL . FILIO. In 
the next generation any direct notice 
of servile origin would disappear; but 
the names very often indicate it. It 
need not however necessarily denote 
low extraction: see e.g. Liv. xliv. 16. 

7 Menander Inc. 312 (Meineke Fragm. 
Com. Iv. p. 300), where the ’Ovnoimos 
addressed is a slave, as appears from 
the mention of his rpddiuos, i. e. mas- 
ter; Galen de Opt. Doctr. 1 (1. p. 41) 
ed. Kiihn), where there is a reference 
to a work of Phavorinus in which was 
introduced one Onesimus 6 II\ourdpxou 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. Z1E 


the social condition naturally suggested by it. In the inscrip- 

tions of proconsular Asia it is found’; but no stress can be laid 

en this coincidence, for its occurrence as a proper name was 
doubtless coextensive with the use of the Greek language. 

More important is the fact that in the early history of Christi- 

anity it attains some eminence in this region. One Onesimus Its pro- 
is bishop of Ephesus in the first years of the second century, careers 
when Ignatius passes through Asia Minor on his way to a ae 
martyrdom, and is mentioned by the saint in terms of warm sular Asia. 
affection and respect”, Another, apparently an influential 
layman, about half a century later urges Melito bishop of 

Sardis to compile a volume of extracts from the Scriptures; 

and to him this father dedicates the work when completed *. 

Thus it would appear that the memory of the Colossian 

slave had invested the name with a special popularity among 
Christians in this district. 

Onesimus represented the least respectable type of the Position 
least respectable class in the social scale. He was regarded by pay ; 
philosophers as a ‘live chattel,’ a ‘live implement*’; and he had Onesimus. 
taken philosophy at her word. He had done what a chattel or 
an implement might be expected to do, if endued with life and 
intelligence. He was treated by the law as having no rights’; 
and he had carried the principles of the law to their logical 


consequences. He had declined to entertain any responsibilities. 


abat; see also §§ 2, 5, 6. 


So0dos ’Emixryntw dvadeyouevos; Anthol. 
Graec. 11. p. 161, where the context shows 
that the person addressed as Onesimus 
is a slave; ib. 11. p. 482, where the 
master, leaving legacies to his servants, 
says ’Ovnotmos elkoos wévre | was éxérw 
Ados 8’ etxoot pds éxérw* | mevrnKovra 
Lvposs Luvérn déxa, x.7.A. See also 
the use of the name in the Latin play 
quoted Suet. Galb. 13 (according to one 
reading). 

1°It occurs as near to Coloss@ as 
Aphrodisias; Boeckh C, I. no. 2743. 

4 Ign. Ephes. 1 év ’Ovnolup ro év 
ayary aiinynry vuav dé év capkt ém- 
oKoTy...eUhoynros 6 Xaptoduevos “vuiv 
dtlois ovow roovroy éxickomov KeKTH- 


3 Melito in Euseb. H. E. iv. 26 
MeXrwv ’Ovyctuw 7 diekpe xalpev. 
"Erredn mrodAdkis Hilwoas K.T.d. 

4 Aristot. Pol. i. 4 (p. 1253) 6 dovdos 
KTqua Te Euyvxov, Eth. Nic. viii. 13 (p. 
1161) 6 yap SotrAos euwuxov Spyavov, Td 
5 bpyavov awuxos SovAos. See also the 
classification of ‘implements’ in Varro, 
de Re rust. 1. 17. 1 ‘ Instrumenti genus 
vocale et semivocale et mutum: vocale, 
in quo sunt servi; semivocale, in quo 
boves; mutum, in quo plaustra.’ 

5 Dig. iv. 5 ‘Servile caput nullum 
jus habet’ (Paulus); ib. 1. 17 ‘In per- 
sonam servilem nulla cadit obligatio’ 
(Ulpianus). 


312 


His en. 
counter 
with St 
Paul in 
Rome 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


There was absolutely nothing to recommend him. He was 
a slave, and what was worse, a Phrygian slave; and he had 
confirmed the popuilar estimate of his class* and nation? by 
his own conduet. He was a thief and a runaway. His offence 
did not differ in any way, so far as we know, from the vulgar 
type of slavish offences. He seems to have done just what 
the representative slave in the Roman comedy threatens to do, 
when he gets into trouble. He had ‘packed up some goods 
and taken to his heels*.’ Rome was the natural cesspool for 
these offscourings of humanity*. In the thronging crowds of 
the metropolis was his best hope of secresy. In the dregs of 
the city rabble he would find the society of congenial spirits. 
But at Rome the Apostle spread his net for him, and he 
was caught in its meshes. How he first came in contact with 
the imprisoned missionary we can only conjecture. Was it an 
accidental encounter with his fellow-townsman Epaphras in the 
streets of Rome which led to the interview? Was it the 
pressure of want which induced him to seek alms from one 
whose large-hearted charity must have been a household word 
in his master’s family? Or did the memory of solemn words, 
which he had chanced to overhear at those weekly gather- 
ings in the upper chamber at Colosse, haunt him in his 
loneliness, till, yielding to the fascination, he was constrained 
to unburden himself to the one man who could soothe his 


1 Plaut. Pseud. 1. 2, 6 ‘Ubi data mon Lydus esset’: comp, Alciphr. 


occasiost, rape, clepe, tene, harpaga, 
bibe, es, fuge; hoc eorum opust’; Ovid 
Amor. i. 15. 17 ‘Dum fallax servus.’ 

2 Cicero speaks thus of Phrygia and 
theneighbouring districts; pro Flacc. 27 
‘Utrum igitur nostrum est an vestrum 
hoe proverbium Phrygem plagis fieri 
solere meliorem? Quid de tota Caria? 
Nonne hoe vestra voce vulgatum est; 
si quid cum periculo experiri velis, in 
Care id potissimum esse faciendum ? 
Quid porro in Graeco sermone tam 
tritum est, quam si quis despicatui 
ducitur, ut Mysorum ultimus esse di- 
catur ? Nam quid ego dicam de Lydia? 
Quis unquam Graecus comoediam scrip- 
sit in qua seryus primarum partium 


Epist. ili, 38 Bpvya olkérny éxw tovn- 
pov x.7..: Apollod. Com. (Meineke, 
Iv. Pp. 451) od wavyraxod @pvé elu 
x.7.. This last passage refers to the 
cowardice with which, besides all their 
other bad qualities, the Phrygians were 
credited: comp. Anon. Com. (ib. rv. 
p. 652) decAbrepov Aayé Spvyds, Tertull. 
de Anim. 20 ‘Comici Phrygas timidos 
illudunt’: see Ribbeck Com. Lat. p. 
100. 

3 Ter. Phorm. i. 4. 13 ‘aliquid con- 
vasassem, atque hinc me protinam 
conjicerem in pedes.’ 

* Sall. Cat. xxxvii. 5 ‘Romam sicuti 
in sentinam confluxerant’; comp. Tac. 
Ann XY. 44. 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 313 
terrors and satisfy his yearnings? Whatever motive may 
have drawn him to the Apostle’s side—whether the pangs 
of hunger or the gnawings of conscience—when he was once 
within the range of attraction, he could not escape. He and con- 


: ; : ‘ version. 
listened, was impressed, was convinced, was baptized. The 


slave of Philemon became the freedman of Christ’. St Paul 
found not only a sincere convert, but a devoted friend, in his 
latest son in the faith. Aristotle had said that there ought 
not to be, and could not be, any friendship with a slave qua 
slave, though there might be gua man*; and others had held 
still stronger language to the same effect. The Apostle did 
not recognise the philosopher’s subtle distinction. For him 
the conventional barrier between slave and free had altogether 
vanished before the dissolving presence of an eternal verity *. 
He found in Onesimus something more than a slave, a beloved St Paul’s 
brother, both as a slave and as a mau, ‘both in the flesh and in rari 
the Lord*’ The great capacity for good which appears in the 
typical slave of Greek and Roman fiction, notwithstanding all 
the fraud and profligacy overlying it, was evoked and developed 
here by the inspiration of a new faith and the incentive of a 
new hope. The genial, affectionate, winning disposition, puri- 
fied and elevated by a higher knowledge, had found its proper 
scope. Altogether this new friendship was a solace and a 
strength to the Apostle in his weary captivity, which he could 
ill afford to forego. To take away Onesimus was to tear out 
Paul’s heart *. 
But there was an imperious demand for the sacrifice. One- Necessity 
simus had repented, but he had not made restitution. He "bis 


return 
could only do this by submitting again to the servitude from 


1 x Cor, vii. 22. 

2 Eth. Nic. vill. 13 (p. 1161) gidla 
& obk gore mpds Ta Apuxa ode Sixacov* 
GAN’ 085e pds Yrrov 7@ Bodv, ov58 pds 
Sovdov 7 SovdAos* ovdev yap Kowdy éoriv" 
6 yap So0do0s euyuxov spyavorv, 7d 8 
Epyavov &Wuxos Sovdos* 7 ev ovv Soidos, 
obk gore Gidla mpds abrév, 3 5’ dvOpwros 
«.7.. On the views of Aristotle re- 
specting slavery see Becker’s Charihles 


I. p. 2 sq. (ed. 2, 1854) with the 
editor K. F. Hermann’s references to 
the literature of the subject, p. 5. 

3 1 Cor. vii. 21 8q., Gal. iii. 28, Col. 
iii, 11. With this contrast the ex- 
pression attributed to a speaker in 
Macrob. Sat. i. rr ‘quasi vero curent 
divina de servis.’ 

4 Philem, 16, 

5 ver. 12. 


314 


notwith- 
standing 
the risk. 


Mediation 
of Tychi- 
cus 


supple- 
mented 
by the 
Apostle’s 
letter. 


Analysis 
of the 
letter. 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


which he had escaped. Philemon must be made to feel that 
when Onesimus was gained for Christ, he was regained for his 
old master also. But if the claim of duty demanded a great 
sacrifice from Paul, it demanded a greater still from Onesimus. 
By returning he would place himself entirely at the mercy of the 
master whom he had wronged. Roman law, more cruel than 
Athenian, practically imposed no limits to the power of the 
master over his slave’, The alternative of life or death rested 
solely with Philemon, and slaves were constantly crucified for 
far lighter offences than his* A thief and a runaway, he had 
no claim to forgiveness. 

A favourable opportunity occurred for restoring Onesimus 
to his master. Tychicus, as the bearer of letters from the 
Apostle to Laodicea and Colosse, had oceasion to visit those 
parts. He might undertake the office of mediator, and plead 
the cause of the penitent slave with the offended master. 
Under his shelter Onesimus would be safer than if he en- 
countered Philemon alone. But St Paul is not satisfied with 
this precaution. He will with his own hand write a few words 
of eager affectionate entreaty, identifying himself with the 
cause of Onesimus. So he takes up his pen. 

After the opening saiutation to Philemon and the members 
of his family, he expresses his thankfulness for the report which 
has reached his ears of his friend’s charitable deeds. It is a 
great joy and encouragement to the Apostle that so many 
brethren have had cause to bless his name. This wide-spread 
reputation for kindliness emboldens him to reveal his object in 
writing. Though he has a right to command, he prefers rather 


to entreat. He has a petition to prefer on behalf of a child of 


1 Dig. i. 6 ‘In potestate sunt servi 
dominorum; quae quidem potestas 
juris gentium est: nam apud omnes 
peraeque gentes animadvertere possu- 
mus dominis in servos vitae necisque 
potestatem fuisse.’ Comp. Senec. de 
Clem. i. 18 ‘Cum in servum omnia 
liceant.’ 

2 So the mistress in Juv. Sat. vi. 
219 8g. ‘Pone crucem servo. Meruit 


quo crimine servus supplicium? quis 
testis adest? quis detulit?... O demens, 
ita servus homo est? nil fecerit, esto. 
Hoc volo, sic jubeo, etc. Compare 
the words of the slave in Plautus Mil. 
Glor. ii. 4. 19 ‘Noli minitari: scio 
crucem futuram mihi sepulerum: Ibi 
mei sunt majores siti, pater, avos, 
proayvos, abavos.’ 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 315 


his own. This is none other than Onesimus, whom Philemon Analysis 
will remember only as a worthless creature, altogether untrue ee 
to his name, but who now is a reformed man. He would have 
wished to detain Onesimus, for he can ill afford to dispense 
with his loving services. Indeed Philemon would doubtless have 
been glad thus to minister vicariously to the Apostle’s wants. 
But a benefit which wears the appearance of being forced, 
whether truly so or not, loses all its value, and therefore he 
sends him back. Nay, there may have been in this desertion a 
Divine providence which it would ill become him Paul to thwart, 
Onesimus may have been withheld from Philemon for a time, 
that he might be restored to him for ever. He may have left as 
a slave, that he might return more than a slave. To others— 
to the Apostle himself especially—he is now a dearly beloved 
brother. Must he not be this and more than this to Philemon, 
whether in earthly things or in heavenly things? He therefore 
begs Philemon to receive Onesimus as he would receive himself. 
As for any injury that he may have done, as for any money that 
he may owe, the Apostle makes himself responsible for this. 
The present letter may be accepted as a bond, a security for 
repayment. Yet at the same time he cannot refrain from 
reminding Philemon that he might fairly claim the remission of 
so small an amount. Does not his friend owe to him his own 
soul besides? ‘Yes, he has a right to look for some filial grati- 
tude and duty from one to whom he stands in the relation of a 
spiritual father. Philemon will surely not refuse him this com- 
fort in his many trials. He writes in the full confidence that 
he will be obeyed; he is quite sure that his friend will do more 
than is asked of him. At the same time he trusts to see him 
before very long, and to talk over this and other matters. 
Philemon may provide him a lodging: for he hopes through 
their prayers that he may be liberated, and given back to them. 
Then follow the salutations, and the letter ends with the 
Apostle’s benediction. 

Of the result of this appeal we have no certain knowledge. Result 


It is reasonable to suppose however that Philemon would not panel 


316 


Legendary 
history. 


Deprecia- 
tion of the 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


belie the Apostle’s hopes; that he would receive the slave as a 
brother ; that he would even go beyond the express terms of 
the Aposile’s petition, and emancipate the penitent. But all 
this is a mere conjecture. One tradition makes Onesimus bishop 
of Ephesus*, But this obviously arises from a confusion with 
his namesake, who lived about half a century later*, Another 
story points to Bereea in Macedonia as his see*, This is at least 
free from the suspicion of having been suggested by any notice 
in the Apostolic writings: but the authority on which it rests 
does not entitle it to much credit. The legend of his missionary 
labours in Spain and of his martyrdom at Rome may have been 
built on the hypothesis of his continuing in the Apostle’s 
company, following in the Apostle’s footsteps, and sharing the 
Apostle’s fate. Another story, which gives a circumstantial 
account of his martyrdom at Puteoli, seems te confuse him with 
a namesake who suffered, or was related to have suffered, in the 
Decian persecution *. 

The estimate formed of this epistle at various epochs has 
differed widely. In the fourth century there was a strong bias 
against it. The ‘spirit of the age’ had no sympathy with either 
the subject or the handling. Like the spirit of more than one 
later age, it was enamoured of its own narrowness, which it 
mistook for largeness of view, and it could not condescend to 
such trivialities as were here offered to it. Its maxim seemed 
to be De minimis non curat evangelium. Of what account was 
the fate of a single insignificant slave, long since dead and gone, 
to those before whose eyes the battle of the creeds was still 
raging? This letter taught them nothing about questions of 
theological interest, nothing about matters of ecclesiastical disci- 


1 See Acta Sanct. Boll. xvi Febr. may be intended. But on the other 


(11. p. 857 sq. ed. nov.) for the autho- 
rities, if they deserve the name. 

2 If we take the earlier date of the 
Fpistles of St Ignatius, a.p. 107, we 
get an interval of 44 years between the 
Onesimus of St Paul and the Onesimus 
of Ignatius. It is not altogether impos- 
sible therefore that the same person 


hand the language of Ignatius (Ephes. 
r sq.) leaves the impression that he is 
speaking of a person comparatively 
young and untried in office. 

3 Apost. Const. vii. 46, quoted above, 
p. 206, note 1. 

4 For the legend compare Act. 
Sanct. 1. c, p. 858 sq. See also the 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


pline; and therefore they would have none of it. They denied 
that it had been written by St Paul. It mattered nothing to 
them that the Church from the earliest ages had accepted it as 
genuine, that even the remorseless ‘higher criticism’ of a 
Marcion had not ventured to lay hands on it’. It was wholly 
unworthy of the Apostle. If written by him, they contended, 
it must have been written when he was not under the influence 


of the Spirit: its contents were altogether so unedifying. We Reply 
fathers. 


may infer from the replies of Jerome’, of Chrysostom *, and of 
Theodore of Mopsuestia*, that they felt themselves to be 
stemming a fierce current of prejudice which had set in this 


direction. 


But they were strong in the excellence of their 


cause, and they nobly vindicated this epistle against its 


assailants. 


317 


In modern times there has been no disposition to under-rate High es- 


its value. 


Even Luther and Calvin, whose bias tended to the 


timate of 
modern 


depreciation of the ethical as compared with the doctrinal Yr 
portions of the scriptures, show a true appreciation of its beauty 
and significance. ‘This epistle’, writes Luther, ‘showeth a Luther. 
right noble loyely example of Christian love. Here we see how 


note on the Ignatian Mart. Rom. to. 

1 Hieron. Comm. in Philem. praef. 
vir. p. 743 ‘Pauli esse epistolam ad 
Philemonem saltem Marcione auctore 
doceantur : qui, quum caeteras epistolas 
ejusdem vel non susceperit vel quaedam 
in his mutaverit atque corroserit, in 
hanc solam manus non est ausus mit- 
tere, quia sua illam brevitas defende- 
bat.’ St Jerome has in his mind 
Tertullian adv. Mare. v. 21 ‘Soli huic 
epistolae breyitas sua profuit, ut fal- 
Sarias manus Marcionis evaderet.’ 

7 ib. p. 742 Sq. ‘Qui nolunt inter 
epistolas Pauli eam recipere quae ad 
Philemonem scribitur, aiunt non sem- 
per apostolum nec omnia Christo in se 
loquente dixisse, quia nec humana 
imbecillitas unum tenorem Sancti Spi- 
ritusferre potuisset etc.,. His et cacteris 
istius modi volunt aut epistolam non 
esse Pauli quae ad Philemonem scri- 
bitur aut, etiamsi Pauli sit, nihil ha- 


bere quod aedificare nos possit etc.... 
sed mihi videntur, dum epistolam sim- 
plicitatis arguunt, suam imperitiam 
prodere, non intelligentes quid in sin- 
gulis sermonibus virtutis et sapientiae 
lateat.’ 

3 Argum. in Philem. adn’ érecdy twés 
pact wepitrov elvac Td Kal TavTyY mpoc- 
Keto bat Thy értoroAjy, elye brép mpdypua- 
Tos miKpov nilwaev, Uép évds avbpbs, wa- 
Oérwoav boot TavTa éyKkadovow sre puplwy 
elsiv éyxAnuarwy Géiot x.T.X., and he 
goes on to discuss the value of the 
epistle at some length. 

* Spicil. Solesm. 1. p. 149 ‘Quid 
vero ex ea lucri possit acquiri, convenit 
manifestius explicare, quia nec omni- 
bus id existimo posse esse cognitum; 
quod maxime heri jam ipse a nobis 
disseri postulasti’; ib. p. 152 ‘De his 
et nunc superius dixi, quod non omnes 
similiter arbitror potius se (potuisse?) 
prospicere.’ 


318 


Calvin. 


Later 
writers. 


The epi- 


stle com- 
pared with 


a letter 
of Pliny, 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


St Paul layeth himself out for poor Onesimus, and with all his 
means pleadeth his cause with his master: and so setteth 
himself as if he were Onesimus, and had himself done wrong 
to Philemon. Even as Christ did for us with God the Father, 
thus also doth St Paul for Onesimus with Philemon...We are all 
his Onesimi, to my thinking.’ ‘Though he handleth a subject, 
says Calvin, ‘which otherwise were low and mean, yet after his 
manner. he is borne up aloft unto God. With such modest 
entreaty doth he humble himself on behalf of the lowest of men, 
that scarce anywhere else is the gentleness of his spirit por- 
trayed more truly to the life.’ And the chorus of admiration 
has been swelled by later voices from the most opposite quarters. 
‘The single Epistle to Philemon, says one quoted by Bengel, 
‘very far surpasses all the wisdom of the world’’ ‘ Nowhere,’ 
writes Ewald, ‘can the sensibility and warmth of a tender friend- 
ship blend more beautifully with the loftier feeling of a 
commanding spirit, a teacher and an Apostle, than in this 
letter, at once so brief, and yet so surpassingly full and signifi- 
cant”. ‘A true little chef d’ceuvre of the art of letter-writing, 
exclaims M. Renan characteristically *. ‘We have here,’ writes 
Sabatier, ‘only a few familiar lines, but so full of grace, of 
salt, of serious and trustful affection, that this short epistle 
gleams like a pearl of the most exquisite purity in the rich 
treasure of the New Testament*.’ Even Baur, while laying 
violent hands upon it, is constrained to speak of this ‘little letter’ 
as ‘making such an agreeable impression by its attractive form’ 
and as penetrated ‘with the noblest Christian spirit °’ 

The Epistle to Philemon has more than once been com- 
pared with the following letter addressed to a friend by the 
younger Pliny on a somewhat similar occasion ° : 

Your freedman, with whom you had told me you were vexed, 
came to me, and throwing himself down before me clung to my feet, 


1 Franke Praef. N.T.Graec.p.26,27, Paul himself gave at the end of his 


quoted by Bengel on Philem. r. letter to the Colossians been better 
2 Die Sendschreiben ete. p. 458. realised, 6 Adyos Yudy wdvrore év xdpiTt, 
3 L’ Antéchrist p. 96. dare npruuévos x.7.d. (Col. iy. 6).’ 


4 L’Apétre Paul p. 194. He goes on 5 Paulus p. 476. 
to say; ‘ Never has the precept which 6 Plin. Ep. ix. 21. 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 319 


as if they had been yours. He was profuse in his tears and his 
entreaties; he was profuse also in his silence. In short, he con- 
vinced me of his penitence. I believe that he is indeed a reformed 
character, because he feels that he has done wrong. You are angry, 
I know; and you have reason to be angry, this also I know: but 
mercy wins the highest praise just when there is the most righteous 
cause for anger. You loved the man, and, I hope, will continue to 
love him: meanwhile it is enough, that you should allow yourself 
to yield to his prayers. You may be angry again, if he deserves it ; 
and in this you will be the more readily pardoned if you yield now. 
Concede something to his youth, something to his tears, something 
to your own indulgent disposition. Do not torture him, lest you 
torture yourself at the same time, For it 2s torture to you, when one 
of your gentle temper is angry. J am afraid lest I should appear not 
to ask but to compel, if I should add my prayers to his. Yet I will 
add them the more fully and unreservedly, because I scolded the man 
himself with sharpness and severity ; for I threatened him straitly 
that I would never ask you again. This I said to him, for it was 
necessary to alarm him; but I do not use the same language to you. 
For perchance I shall ask again, and shall be successful again ; only 
let my request be such, as it becomes me to prefer and you to grant. 
Farewell. 

The younger Pliny is the noblest type of a true Roman ag an ex- 
gentleman, and this touching letter needs no words of praise. ess 
Yet, if purity of diction be excepted, there will hardly be any racter. 
difference of opinion in awarding the palm to the Christian 
Apostle. Asan expression of simple dignity, of refined courtesy, 
of large sympathy, and of warm personal affection, the Epistle 
to Philemon stands unrivalled, And its pre-eminence is the 
more remarkable because in style it is exceptionally loose. It 
owes nothing to the graces of rhetoric; its effect is due solely 
to the spirit of the writer. 

But the interest which attaches to this short epistle as ts higher 
an expression of individual character is far less important than ™**t®**- 
its significance as exhibiting the attitude of Christianity toa 
widely spread and characteristic social institution of the ancient 
world. 

Slavery was practised by the Hebrews under the sanction 
of the Mosaic law, not less than by the Greeks and Romans, 





320 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


Slavery But though the same in name, it was in its actual working 
ces Lome something wholly different. The Hebrew was not suffered either 
by law-giver er by prophet to forget that he himself had been 
a bondman in the land of Egypt; and all his relations to his 
dependents were moulded by the sympathy of this recollection. 
His slaves were members of his family; they were members 
also of the Holy Congregation. They had their religious, as 
well as their social, rights. If Hebrews, their liberty was 
secured to them after six years’ service at the outside. If 
foreigners, they were protected by the laws from the tyranny 
and violence of their masters. Considering the conditions of 
ancient society, and more especially of ancient warfare, slavery 
as practised among the Hebrews was probably an escape from 
alternatives which would have involved a far greater amount of 
human misery. Still even in this form it was only a temporary 
concession, till the fulness of time came, and the world was 

taught that ‘in Christ is neither bond nor free*’ 
Among the Jews the slaves formed only a small fraction of 
the whole population®. They occupy a very insignificant place 
in the pictures of Hebrew life and history which have been 


= handed down to us. But in Greece and Rome the case was far 
Pires Shain 2 ‘ 

slavesin different. In our enthusiastic eulogies of free, enlightened, 
ee democratic Athens, we are apt to forget that the interests 


of the many were ruthlessly sacrificed to the selfishness of the 
few. The slaves of Attica on the most probable computation 
were about four times as numerous as the citizens, and about 
three times as numerous as the whole free population of the 
state, including the resident aliens*. They were consigned for 
the most part to labour in gangs in the fields or the mines 


1 On slavery among the Hebrews 
see the admirable work of Prof. Gold- 
win Smith Does the Bible sanction 
American slavery ? p. 1 8q. 

2 In Ezra ii. 65 the number of slaves 
compared with the number of free is 
a little more than one to six. 

3 Boeckh Public Economy of Athens 
p. 35 8q. According to a census taken 
by Demetrius Phalereus there were in 


the year 309 B.C. 21,000 citizens, 
10,000 residents, and 400,000 slaves 
(Ctesicles in Athen. vi. p. 272 B). 
This would make the proportion of 
slaves to citizens nearly twenty to one. 
It is supposed however that the num- 
ber of citizens here includes only 
adult males, whereas the number of 
slaves may comprise both sexes and 
all ages. Hence Boeckh’s estimate 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


or the factories, without any hope of bettering their condition. 
In the light of these facts we see what was really meant by 
popular government and equal rights at Athens. The propor- 
tions of the slave population elsewhere were even greater. In 
the small island of Atgina, scarcely exceeding forty English 
square miles in extent, there were 470,000 slaves; in the con- 
tracted territory of Corinth there were not less than 460,000’. 
The statistics of slave-holding in Italy are quite as startling. We 
are told that wealthy Roman landowners sometimes possessed as 
many as ten or twenty thousand slaves, or even more. We may 
indeed not unreasonably view these vague and general statements 
with suspicion: but itis a fact that, a few years before the Chris- 
tian era, one Claudius Isidorus left by will more than four thou- 
sand slaves,though he had incurred serious losses by the civil war®. 


And these vast masses of human beings had no protection Cruelty of 


from Roman law *. 
jugal rights. 
pleasure, but not marriage. 
assigned to him by lot® The slave was absolutely at his 
master’s disposal; for the smallest offence he might be scourged, 


His companion was sometimes 


mutilated, crucified, thrown to the wild beasts *% 


which is adopted in the text. For other 
calculations see Wallon Histoire de 
VEsclavage 1. p. 221 sq. 

1 Athen, l.c. p. 272 B,D. The state- 
ment respecting Aigina is given on 
the authority of Aristotle; that re- 
specting Corinth on the authority of 
Epitimeus. 

2 Athen. l.c. ‘Pwualwy &xacros... 
mrelarous Scous KexTnuévos olkéras* Kal 
yap puplous kal Sicuuplous Kal Ere wdelous 
5é mdproddoe Kéxrnvraz. See Becker 
Gallus 1, p. 113 (ed. 3). 

*) Pins Ne. xxaiit. 47- 

4 On the condition of Greek and 
Roman slaves the able and exhaust- 
ive work of Wallon Histoire de lEs- 
clavage dans VAntiquité (Paris 1847) 
is the chief authority. See also Becker 
and Marquardt Rom. Alterth. v. 1. p. 
139 sq.; Becker Charikles 11. p. 1 8q., 
Gallus u. p. 99 sq. The practical 


COL, 


Only two or 


working of slavery among the Romans 
is placed in its most favourable light in 
Gaston Bossier La Religion Romaine 
Il, p. 343 Sq. (Paris 1874), and in Over- 
beck Studien zur Gesch. d. Alten Kir- 
che I. p. 158 sq. 

5 Rom, Alterth.1.¢. p. 184 8q.; Gallus 
Ir p. 144 8q. Itt this, as in other 
respects, the cruelty of the legislature 
was mitigated by the humanity of in- 
dividual masters; and the inscriptions 
show that male and female slaves in 
many cases were allowed to live to- 
gether through life as man and wife, 
though the law did not recognise or 
secure their union. It was reserved 
for Constantine to take the initiative 
in protecting the conjugal and family 
rights of slaves by legislature; Cod. 
Theod. ii. 25. 1. 

6 Wallon 1. p. 177 8q.; Rom. Alterth. 
l.c.; Gallus 1. p. 145 8q.; Rein Privat. 


2I 


The slave had no relationships, no con- Bom 


Cohabitation was allowed to him at his owner’s Mia 


322 


Murder of 
Pedanius 
Secundus. 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


three years before the letter to Philemon was written, and 
probably during St Paul’s residence in Rome, a terrible tragedy 
had been enacted under the sanction of the law*. Pedanius 
Secundus, a senator, had been slain by one of his slaves in 
a fit of anger or jealousy. The law demanded that in such 
cases all the slaves under the same roof at the time should be 
put to death. On the present occasion four hundred persons 
were condemned to suffer by this inhuman enactment. The 
populace however interposed to rescue them, and a tumult 
ensued. The Senate accordingly took the matter into delibera- 
tion. Among the speakers C. Cassius strongly advocated the 
enforcement of the law. ‘The dispositions of slaves,’ he argued, 
‘were regarded with suspicion by our ancestors, even when 
they were born on the same estates or in the same houses and 
learnt to feel an affection for their masters from the first. Now 
however, when we have several nations among our slaves, with 
various rites, with foreign religions or none at all, it is not 
possible to keep down such a rabble except by fear’ These 
sentiments prevailed, and the law was put in force. But the 
roads were lined by a military guard, as the prisoners were 
led to execution, to prevent a popular outbreak. This incident 
illustrates not only the heartless cruelty of the law, but also 
the social dangers arising out of slavery. Indeed the universal 
distrust had already found expression in a common proverb, 
‘As many enemies as slaves’’ But this was not the only way 
in which slavery avenged itself on the Romans. The spread 
of luxury and idleness was a direct consequence of this state 


of things. 
because a servile occupation. 


recht der Romer p. 552 sq. Hadrian 
first took away from masters the 
power of life and death over their 
slaves; Spart. Vit. Hadr. 18 ‘ Servos 
a dominis occidi vetuit eosque jussit 
damnari per judices, si digni essent’. 
For earlier legislative enactments which 
had afforded a very feeble protection 
to slaves, see below p. 327. 

1 Tac. Ann. xiv. 42. This incident 


Work came to be regarded as a low and degrading, 
Meanwhile sensuality in its vilest 


took place a.p. 61. The law in ques- 
tion was the Senatusconsultum Silo- 
nianum, passed under Augustus A. D, 
Io. 
2 Senec. Ep. Mor. 47 ‘Deinde ejus- 
dem arrogantiae proverbium jactatur 
totidem hostes esse quot servos’; comp. 
Macrob. i. rr. 13. See also Festus 
p. 261 (Hd. Mueller) ‘Quot servi tot 
hostes in proverbio est’. 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 323 


forms was fostered by the tremendous power which placed the 
slave at the mercy of the master’s worst passions’, 

With this wide-spread institution Christianity found itself ea 
in conflict. How was the evil to be met? Slavery was in- revolu- 
woven into the texture of society; and to prohibit slavery was "°°": 
to tear society into shreds. Nothing less than a servile war 
with its certain horrors and its doubtful issues must have been 
the consequence. Such a mode of operation was altogether 
alien to the spirit of the Gospel. ‘The New Testament’, it 
has been truly said, ‘is not concerned with any political or 
social institutions; for political and social institutions belong to 
particular nations and particular phases of society. ‘Nothing 
marks the divine character of the Gospel more than its per- 
fect freedom from any appeal to the spirit of political revo- 
lution®’ It belongs to all time: and therefore, instead of 
attacking special abuses, it lays down universal principles 
which shall undermine the evil. 

Hence the Gospel never directly attacks slavery as an in- St Faul's 

reatment 
stitution: the Apostles never command the liberation of slaves of the 
as an absolute duty. It is a remarkable fact that St Paul in roar 
this epistle stops short of any positive injunction. The word 
‘emancipation’ seems to be trembling on his lips, and yet he 
does not once utter it. He charges Philemon to take the run- 


away slave Onesimus into his confidence again; to receive him 


1 See the saying of Haterius in the 
elder Seneca Controv. iv. Praef., ‘ Im- 
pudicitia in ingenuo crimen est, in 
servo necessitas, in liberto officium’, 
with its context. Wallon (1. p. 332) 
sums up the condition of the slave 
thus: ‘L’esclave appartenait au mai- 
tre: par lui méme, il n’était rien, il 
n’avait rien. oils le principe; et 
tout ce qu’on en peut tirer par voice 
de conséquence formait aussi, en fait, 
l'état commun des esclaves dans la 
plupart des pays. A toutes les épo- 
ques, dans toutes les situations de la 
vie, cette autorité souveraine plane 
sur eux et modifie leur destinde par 
Bes rigueurs comme par son indif- 


ference. Dans lage de la force et dans 
la plénitude de leurs facultés, elle les 
vouait, & son choix, soit au travail, 
soit au vice; au travail les natures 
grossiéres; au vice, les natures plus 
délicates, nourries pour le plaisir du 
maitre, et qui lorsqu’il en était las, 
étaient reléguées dans la prostitution 
a son profit. Avant et aprés lage du 
travail, abandonnés a leur faiblesse ou 
a leurs infirmités; enfants, ils grand- 
issaient dans le désordre ; viellards, ils 
mouraient souvent dans la misére; 
morts, ils étaient quelquefois délaissés 
sur la voie publique...’ 

2G. Smith Does the Bible etc. ? pp. 


95) 96. 
2I—2 


324 


His lan- 
guage re- 
specting 
slavery 
elsewhere, 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


with all affection; to regard him no more as a slave but as 
a brother; to treat him with the same consideration, the same 
love, which he entertains for the Apostle himself to whom he 
owes everything. In fact he tells him to do very much more 
than emancipate his slave, but this one thing he does not 
directly enjoin. St Paul’s treatment of this individual case 
is an apt illustration of the attitude of Christianity towards 
slavery in general, 

Similar also is his language elsewhere. Writing to the 
Corinthians, he declares the absolute equality of the freeman 
and the slave in the sight of God’. It follows therefore that 
the slave may cheerfully acquiesce in his lot, knowing that all 
earthly distinctions vanish in the light of this eternal truth. 
If his freedom should be offered to him, he will do well to 
accept it, for it puts him in a more advantageous position?: 
but meanwhile he need not give himself any concern about 
his lot in life. So again, when he addresses the Ephesians and 
Colossians on the mutual obligations of masters and slaves, 
he is content to insist on the broad fact that both alike are 
slaves of a heavenly Master, and to enforce the duties which 


1 1 Cor. vii. 21 sq. 

2 The clause, d\N’ ef Kal divaca 
éNevOepos yevécOat, waddov xpjoa, has 
been differently interpreted from early 
times, either as recommending the 
slave to avail himself of any oppor- 
tunity of emancipation, or as advising 
him to refuse the offer of freedom and 
to remain in servitude. The earliest 
commentator whose opinion I have 
observed, Origen (in Cram. Cat. p. 
140), interprets it as favourable to 
liberty, but he confuses the mean- 
ing by giving a metaphorical sense to 
slavery, SovAov wréuacev dvayKkalws Tov 
vyeyaunkéra. Again, Severianus (ib. p. 
141) distinctly explains it as recom- 
mending a state of liberty. On the 
other hand Chrysostom, while men- 
tioning that ‘certain persons’ interpret 
it el divacat éAevIepwOjvat, EhevOepwOnrt, 
himself supposes St Paul to advise the 
slave’s remaining in slavery. And so 
Theodoret and others, The balance 


of argument seems tc be decidedly in 
favour of the former view. 

(1) The actual language must be 
considered first. And here (i) the 
particles ef xat will suit either inter- 
pretation. Ifthey are translated ‘even 
though’, the clause recommends the 
continuance in slavery. But xai may 
be equally well taken with divaca, and 
the words will then mean ‘if it should 
be in your power to obtain your free- 
dom’. So above ver. 11 éav dé xat 
xwpicd7: comp. Luke xi, 18 ef dé Kat 
6 Laravas ép’ éavrév diepepioOy, 1 Pet. 
iii, 14 GAN’ el kal macxoire did dixatogv- 
vyv. (ii) The expression “addov xpyoae 
seems to direct the slave to avail him- 
self of some new opportunity offered, 
and therefore to recommend liberty; 
comp. ix. 12, 15. 

(2) The immediate context will 
admit either interpretation. If slavery 
be preferred, the sentence is con- 
tinuous. If liberty, the clause d\n’ e 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 325 


flow from its recognition’. He has no word of reproach for 
the masters on the injustice of their position; he breathes no 
hint to the slaves of a social grievance needing redress. 

But meanwhile a principle is boldly enunciated, which must The | 
in the end prove fatal to slavery. When the Gospel taught ante 
that God had made all men and women upon earth of one * *!very- 
family ; that all alike were His sons and His daughters; that, 
whatever conventional distinctions human society might set up, 
the supreme King of Heaven refused to acknowledge any; 
that the slave notwithstanding his slavery was Christ’s freed- 
man, and the free notwithstanding his liberty was Christ’s 
slave; when the Church carried out this principle by admitting 
the slave to her highest privileges, inviting him to kneel side 
by side with his master at the same holy table; when im short 
the Apostolic precept that ‘in Christ Jesus is neither bond nor 
free’ was not only recognised but acted upon, then slavery was 
doomed. MHenceforward it was only a question of time. Here 
was the idea which must act as a solvent, must disintegrate 
this venerable institution, however deeply rooted and however 


widely spread. 


kal...ua\X\ov xpyoae is parenthetical. 
In this latter case its motive is to 
correct misapprehension, as if the 
Apostle would say, ‘ When I declare 
the absolute indifference of the two 
states in the sight of God, I do not 
mean to say that you should not avail 
yourselves of freedom, if it comes in 
your way; it puts youin a more ad- 
vantageous position, and you will do 
well to prefer it’. Such a corrective 
parenthesis is altogether after St 
Paul’s manner, and indeed instances 
occur in this very context: e.g. ver. 
1r édv 6¢ xal ywpicOF K.T.r., Ver. 15 
el 62 6 dmicros xwplterat x.7.. This 
last passage is an exact parallel, for 
the yap of ver. 16 is connected imme- 
diately with ver. 14, the parenthesis 
being disregarded as here. 

(3) The argument which seems de- 
cisive is the extreme improbability 
that St Paul should have recommended 
slavery in preference to freedom. For 


‘The brotherhood of man, in short, is the idea 


(i) Such a recommendation would be 
alien to the spirit of a man whose 
sense of political right was so strong, 
and who asserted his citizenship so 
stanchly on more than one occasion 
(Acts xvi. 37, xxii. 28). (ii) The in- 
dependent position of the freeman 
would give him an obvious advantage 
in doing the work of Christ, which 
it is difficult to imagine St Paul en- 
joining him deliberately to forego. 
(iii) Throughout the passage the Apo- 
stle, while maintaining the indifference 
of these earthly relations in the sight 
of God, yet always gives the prefer- 
ence to a position of independence, 
whenever it comes to a Christian na- 
turally and without any undue im- 
patience on his part. The spirit 
which animates St Paul’s injunctions 
here may be seen from vv. 8, 11, 15; 
26, 27 etc. 

1 Ephes. vi. s—g, Col. iii. 22—iy. 1. 


326 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


Its general which Christianity in its social phase has been always striving 
meen’ to realise, and the progress of which constitutes the social 
history of Christendom. With what difficulties this idea has 
struggled; how it has been marred by revolutionary violence, as 
well as impeded by reactionary selfishness; to what chimerical 
hopes, to what wild schemes, to what calamitous disappoint- 
ments, to what desperate conflicts, it has given birth; how 
often being misunderstood and misapplied, it has brought not 
peace on earth but a sword—it is needless here to rehearse. 
Still, as we look back over the range of past history, we can 
see beyond doubt that it is towards this goal that Christianity 
as a social principle has been always tending and still tends’.’ 
Its effects And this beneficent tendency of the Gospel was felt at 
onslavery- once in its effects on slavery. The Church indeed, even in 
the ardour of her earliest love, did not prohibit her sons from 
retaining slaves in their households. It is quite plain from 
extant notices, that in the earlier centuries, as in the later, 
Christians owned slaves? like their heathen neighbours, with- 
out forfeiting consideration among their fellow-believers. But 
nevertheless the Christian idea was not a dead-letter. The 
Protection chivalry of the Gospel which regarded the weak and helpless 
and manu- : : : . 
mission of from whatever cause, as its special charge, which extended its 
slaves. —_ protection to the widow, the orphan, the sick, the aged, and the 
prisoner, was not likely to neglect the slave. Accordingly we 
find that one of the earliest forms which Christian benevolence 
took was the contribution of funds for the liberation of slaves*. 
Honours But even more important than overt acts like these was the 
paid to ‘ : : - 
slave mar- Moral and social importance with which the slave was now 
ayra. invested. Among the heroes and heroines of the Church were 
found not a few members of this class. When slave girls like 


1G. Smith Does the Bible etc.? p. Christian writers collected in Ba- 
121. bington Abolition of Slavery p. 20 sq. 

2 Athenag. Suppl. 35 Soidof elow 3 Ignat. Polyc. 4 wh épdrwoav dao 
hyutv, rots pev Kal whelous rots 8’ éXarrovs. Tov Kowod édevOepovcba, Apost. Const. 
It would even appear that the domes- iv. 9 7a é& airdv, ws mpoeipjKaper, 
tic servant who betrayed Polycarp d6potdueva xphyara diardocere dsaxo- 
(Mart. Polyc. 6) was a slave, for he  voivres els dyopacpods Tw dyluv, pud- 
was put to the torture. Comp. Justin. pmevoe dovrous Kal alxwadwrovs, de- 
Apol. ii. 12. See also passages from  oylous, x.7.r. 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 327 


Blandina in Gaul or Felicitas in Africa, having won for them- 
selves the crown of martyrdom, were celebrated in the festivals 
of the Church with honours denied to the most powerful and 
noblest born of mankind, social prejudice had received a wound 
which could never be healed. 

While the Church was still kept in subjection, moral in- Christ- 
fluence and private enterprise were her only weapons. But pe ah 
Christianity was no sooner seated on the throne of the Cesars 
than its influence began to be felt in the imperial policy’, The 
legislation of Constantine, despite its startling inequalities, Legisla- 
forms a unique chapter in the statute-book of Rome. In its Pea. 
mixed character indeed it reflects the transitional position of "*- 
its author. But after all allowance made for its very patent 
defects, its general advance in the direction of humanity and 
purity is far greater than can be traced in the legislation even 
of the most humane and virtuous of his heathen predecessors. 

More especially in the extension of legal protection to slaves, 
and in the encouragement given to emancipation, we have an 
earnest of the future work which Christianity was destined to 
do for this oppressed class of mankind, though the relief which 


it gave was after all very partial and tentative’. 


1 It must not however be forgotten 
that, even before Christianity became 
the predominant religion, a more hu- 
mane spirit had entered into Roman 
legislation. The important enact- 
ment of Hadrian has been already 
mentioned, p. 321, note 6. Even ear- 
lier the lex Petronia (of which the date 
is uncertain) had prohibited masters 
from making their slaves fight with 
wild beasts in mere caprice and with- 
out an order from a judge (Dig. xlviii. 
8. 11); and Claudius (a.p. 47), finding 
that the practice of turning out sick 
slaves into the streets to die was on 
the increase, ordered that those who 
survived this treatment should have 
their freedom (Dion Cass. lx. 29, Suet. 
Claud. 25). For these and similar 
enactments of the heathen emperors 
see Wallon 111. p. 60 8q., Rom. Alterth. 
v. I. 197, Rein Privatrecht d. Rimer 


p. 5608q. The character of this excep- 
tional legislation is the strongest im- 
peachment of the general cruelty of the 
law; while at the same time subse- 
quent notices show how very far from 
effective it was even within its own 
narrow limits. See for instance the 
passage in Galen, v. p. 17 (ed. Kiihn) 
Aaxrltover Kal tos édPOadpuods ¢£oput- 
Tougt Kal ypadelw xevrovow k.T.d. (comp. 
ib. p. 584), or Seneca de Ira iii. 3. 6 
‘eculei et fidiculae et ergastula et crn- 
ces et circumdati defossis corporibus 
ignes et cadavera quoque trahens un- 
cus, varia vinculorum genera, varia 
poenarum, lacerationes membrorum, 
inscriptiones frontis et bestiarum im- 
manium caveae.,’ 

On the causes of these ameliorations 
in the lawsee Rom. Alterth. v. 1. p. 199. 

2 On the legislation of Constan- 
tine affecting slavery see De Broglie 


328 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


Subse- And on the whole this part has been faithfully and courage- 

prea ously performed by the Church. There have been shameful 

Chan’, exceptions now and then: there has been occasional timidity 
and excess of caution. The commentaries of the fathers on 
this epistle are an illustration of this latter fault’. Much may 
be pardoned to men who shrink from seeming to countenance 
a violent social revolution. But notwithstanding, it is a broad 
and patent fact that throughout the early and middle ages the 
influence of the Church was exerted strongly on the side of 
humanity in this matter» The emancipation of slaves was 
regarded as the principal aim of the higher Christian life*®; the 
amelioration of serfdom was a matter of constant solicitude 
with the rulers of the Church. 

The con- And at length we seem to see the beginning of the end. 

eseilegg The rapid strides towards emancipation during the present 

aale ,, generation are without a parallel in the history of the world. 


The abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire at 
an enormous material sacrifice is one of the greatest moral 


L’Eglise et L’Empire Romain t. p. 304 
gq. (ed. 5), Chawner Influence of Chris- 
tianity upon the Legislation of Con- 
stantine the Great p. 73 sq., Wallon m1. 
p. 4148q. The legislation of Justinian 
is still more honourably distinguished 
for its alleviation of the evils of slavery. 

1 E.g. Chrysostom and Theodore of 
Mopsuestia (Spic. Solesm. 1. p. 152)- 
Yet St Chrysostom himself pleads the 
cause of slaves earnestly elsewhere. 
In Hom. xl ad 1 Cor., x. p. 385 he says 
of slavery, ‘It is the penalty of sin and 
the punishment of disobedience. But 
when Christ came, he annulled even 
this, For in Christ Jesus there is no 
slave nor free. Therefore it is not ne- 
cessary to have a slave; but, if it 
should be necessary, then one only or 
at most a second’, And he then tells 
his audience that if they really care for 
the welfare of slaves, they must ‘buy 
them, and having taught them some 
art that they may maintain themselves, 
set them free.’ ‘I know,’ he adds, 
‘that Iam annoying my hearers; but 


whatcanIdo? For this purpose I am 
appointed, and I will not cease speak- 
ing so.’ On the attitude of this father 
towards slavery see Mohler p. 89 sq. 

2 On the influence of Christianity in 
this respect see Wallon 111. p. 314 8q., 
Biot De Vl Abolition de VEsclavage 
Ancien en Occident (1840), Ch. Ba- 
bington Influence of Christianity in 
promoting the Abolition of Slavery etc. 
(1846), Schmidt Essai historique sur 
la Société Civile dans le Monde Romain 
etc. p. 228 sq. (1853), Mohler Gesam- 
melte Schriften 11. p. 54 8q., G. Smith 
Does the Bible etc.? p. 95 8q., EH. 8. Talbot 
Slavery as affected by Christianity 
(1869), Lecky Rationalism in Europe 11. 
p. 255 8q., European Morals u. p. 65 
sq., Overbeck Studien etc. 1. p. 172 8q., 
Allard Les Esclaves Chrétiens (1876). 
The last-mentioned work, which ap- 
peared after this introduction was first 
published (1875), treats the question 
very fully. 

3 Mohler p. 99 8q., Schmidt p. 
246 8q., Lecky EZ, M. 11. p. 73 8q- 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


conquests which England has ever achieved. The liberation of 
twenty millions of serfs throughout the Russian dominions has 
thrown a halo of glory round the name of Alexander II., which 
no time can dim. The emancipation of the negro in the vast 
republic of the New World was a victory not less important 
than either to the well-being of the human race. Thus within 
the short period of little more than a quarter of a century this 
reproach of civilisation and humanity has been wiped out in 
the three greatest empires of the world. It is a fit sequel 
to these achievements, that at length a well-directed attack 
should have been made on the central fortress of slavery and 
the slave-trade, the interior of Africa. May we not venture 
to predict that in future ages, when distance of view shall 
have adjusted the true relations of events, when the brilliancy 
of empires and the fame of wars shall have sunk to their 
proper level of significance, this epoch will stand out in the 
history of mankind as the era of liberation? If so, the Epistle 
to Philemon, as the earliest prelude to these magnificent social 
victories, must be invested with more than common interest 
for our generation. 


329 





HPOS ®IAHMONA. 


WHERE THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS, THERE 
IS LIBERTY. 


WHO IS WEAK, AND I AM NOT WEAK 4 
WHO IS OFFENDED, AND I BURN NOT? 


Such ever was love's way: to rise, it stoops. 


IrPos 


®IAHMONA. 


AYAOZX, Séopuos Xpiorov “Incot Kai Tipobeos 6 
dderhos, Piro TO ayannTw kal cuvepyw nbav 
= Kal Ampig ™ aden Kat Apxyinrw TW wail an 4 


MOY Kal ™ KaT oikov cou éxkAnola: 


I—3. ‘PAUL, now a prisoner of 
Christ Jesus, and TimotHy a brother 
in the faith, unto PHi~emMoNn our 
dearly-beloved and fellow-labourer in 
the Gospel, and unto Arpura our sis- 
ter, and unto Ancuirrus our fellow- 
soldier in Christ, and to the Church 
which assembles in thy house. Grace 
and peace to you all from God our 
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.’ 

I, décptos] The authoritative title 
of ‘Apostle’ is dropped, because 
throughout this letter St Paul desires 
to entreat rather than to command 
(ver. 8, 9); see the note on Phil. i, 1 
In its place is substituted a designa- 
tion which would touch his friend’s 
heart. How could Philemon resist 
an appeal which was penned within 
prison walls and by a manacled hand? 
For this characteristic reference to 
his ‘bonds’ see the note on ver. 13. 

Tiuddeos| Timothy seems to have 
been with St Paul during a great part 
of his three years’ sojourn in Ephesus 
(Acts xix, 22), and could hardly have 
failed to make the acquaintance of 
Philemon. For the designation 6 
adedgos applied to Timothy see the 
note on Col. i. 1. 

Prjuou xr.A.] On the persons 
here addressed, and the language in 
which they are ’ described, see the in- 
troduction p. 303 sq. 

auvepyo|} It would probably be 
during St Paul's long sojourn at Ephe- 


3yapis Upiy 


sus that Philemon had laboured with 
him: see above p. 31 sq. 

npav] should probably be attached 
to dyanrnré as well as to cuvepyd; 
comp. Rom. xvi. 5, 8,9, 1 Cor. x. 14, 
Phill 31.712, 

2. ty adeAp7] For this the re- 
ceived text has 77 ayarnr7. Internal 
probabilities can be urged in favour 
of both readings. On the one hand 
dyarntn might have been introduced 
for the sake of conformity to the pre- 
ceding dyarynr@; on the other adedpy 
might have been substituted for dya- 
mtn On grounds of false delicacy. 
Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spicil. So- 
lesm. 1. p. 154), who had the reading 
dyarntn, feels an apology necessary : 
‘Istius temporis (i.e. of the present 
time) homines propemodum omnes in 
crimine vocandos esse existimant, mo- 
do si audierint nomen charitatis. A- 
postolus vero non sic sentiebat; sed 
contrario etc. I have preferred r7 
adekdp7, because the preponderance of 
ancient authority is very decidedly in 
its favour. 

ovvotpariatn] These spiritual cam- 
paigns, in which Archippus was his 
comrade, probably took place while 
St Paul was at Ephesus (a.p. 24—57). 
For the word ovvotpatiarns see Phil. 
ii. 25. The metaphor of orpareia, 
orparevecOa, is common in St Paul. 

T7 kat oikov x.r.A.] probably at Co- 
lossze; see above p. 304.8q. For the 


334 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. (4, 5 


\ reat 4 > \ lol A e ~ \ , > - 
Kai elonvn amo Qeov Tatpos nuwy Kat Kupiov “Inoou 


Xpiotov. 


pax anton Tw Oew pou TAVTOTE, [LVElaAY OU TOLOU- 
mevos él TMV TPOTEVXWY MoU, SdKOVWY GoU THY ayarTNY 


meaning of the expression see the 
note on Col. iv. 15. 

4—7. ‘I never cease to give thanks 
to my God for thy well-doing, and thou 
art ever mentioned in my prayers. 
For they tell me of thy love and faith 
—thy faith which thou hast in the 
Lord Jesus, and thy love which thou 
showest towards all the saints; and it 
is my prayer that this active sympathy 
and charity, thus springing from thy 
faith, may abound more and more, as 
thou attainest to the perfect know- 
ledge of every good thing bestowed 
upon us by God, looking unto and 
striving after Christ. For indeed it 
gave me great joy and comfort to hear 
of thy loving-kindness, and to learn 
how the hearts of God’s people had 
been cheered.and refreshed by thy 
help, my dear brother’. 

The Apostle’s thanksgiving and in- 
tercessory prayer (ver. 4)—the cause 
of his thanksgiving (ver. 5)—the pur- 
port of his prayer (ver. 6)—the joy 
and comfort which he has in Phile- 
mon’s good deeds (ver. 7)—this is ‘the 
very simple order of topics in these 
verses. But meanwhile all established 
principles of arrangement are defied 
in the anxiety to give expression to 
the thought which is uppermost for 
the moment. The clause dxovwy k.r.A. 
is separated from evxyapioTe x.7.A., On 
which it depends, by the intervening 
clause pveiay gov x.t.A. Which intro- 
duces another thought. It itself in- 
terposes between two clauses, pyeiav 
gov x.t.A. and Omws 79 kKowovia k.T.d., 
which stand in the closest logical and 
grammatical connexion with each 
other. Its own component elements 
are dislocated and inverted in the 
struggle of the several ideas for im- 
mediate utterance. And lastly, in xa- 


pay yap x.7.A. there is again a recur- 
rence to a topic which has occurred 
in an earlier part of the sentence (rv 
dyamnyv...eis mavras tovs ayiouvs) but 
which has been dropped, before it was 
exhausted, owing to the pressure of 
another more importunate thought. 

4. Evxapicro] See the note on 
1 Thess, i. 2. 

mavrore| should probably be taken 
with evyapicro (rather than with 
pveiay x.t.A.), according to St Paul’s 
usual collocation in these opening 
thanksgivings: see the notes on Col. 
1°35 Phils 3 

pveiav cov k.7.A.] ‘making mention 
of thee. For preiay roeicbar see the 
note on 1 Thess. i. 2: Here the ‘ men- 
tion’ involves the idea of intercession 
on behalf of Philemon, and so intro- 
duces the dws «rd. of ver. 6. See 
the note there. 

5. dxovev] Thisinformation would 
probably come from Epaphras (Ool. i. 
7, 8, iv. 12) rather than from Onesi- 
mus. The participle is connected 
more directly with evxapioro than 
with the intervening words, and ex- 
plains the grounds of the Apostle’s 
thanksgiving. 

Tv ayannv x.7.A.] ie. ‘the faith 
which thou hast towards the Lord Je- 
sus Christ and the love which thou 
showest to all the saints. The logical 
order is violated, and the clauses are 
inverted in the second part of the sen- 
tence, thus producing an example of 
the figure called chiasm; see Gal. iv. 
4,5. This results here from the Apo- 
stle’s setting down the thoughts in 
the sequence in which they occur to 
him, without paying regard to sym- 
metrical arrangement. The first and 
prominent thought i is Philemon’s love. 
This suggests the mention of his faith, 


6] EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


335 


\ \ , Se i) \ l - a reer 
Kal THY TLOTLW HV EXELS TOS TOV Kupioy ‘Incovy Kai Eis 


/ \ Ce 0 6 
WAaAVTAS TOUS AYLOUS, 


J , lon , / 
OTWS 4 KOLVWVIa THS TiCGTEWS Cou 


5 ° / \ ~ n > 
évepyns yevnrat év émiyvwoe. mavtos dyabov tov év 


as the source from which it springs. 
This again requires a reference to the 
object of faith. And then at length 
comes the deferred sequel to the first 
thought—the range and comprehen- 
siveness of his love. The transition 
from the object of faith to the object 
of love is more easy, because the love 
is represented as springing from the 
faith. Some copies transpose the 
order, reading ryy micrw Kai Thy dya- 
mv—an obvious emendation. Others 
would obviate the difficulty by giving 
to rior the meaning ‘ fidelity, sted- 
fastness’; Winer §1. p. 511 sq. Thus 
they are enabled to refer both words, 
miotw Kat aydmnv, equally to both 
the clauses which follow. But though 
this is a legitimate sense of mioris 
in St Paul (see Galatians p. 155), 
yet in immediate connexion with jv 
exets mpos tov Kupiov “Ingovy, it is 
hardly possible that the word can 
have any other than its proper theo- 
logical meaning. See the opening of 
the contemporary epistle, Col. i. 4. 
mpos x.t.\.] The change of prepo- 
sitions, mpos tov Kupiov ‘ towards the 
Lord’ and cis rovs dyiovs ‘unto the 
saints’, deserves attention. It seems 
to arise from the instinctive desire to 
separate the two clauses, as they refer 
to different words in the preceding 
part of the sentence. Of the two pre- 
positions the former (zpo-s) signifies 
direction ‘forward to’, ‘towards’; the 
latter (€v-s) arrival and so contact, 
‘in-to’, ‘unto.’ Consequently either 
might be used in either connexion; 
and as a matter of fact eds is much 
more common with riotts (morevewv), as 
it is also with dydmn, mpds being quite 
exceptional (1 Thess. i. 8 4 mioris Judy 
1) mpos Tov Gedv; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 4), 
But where a distinction is necessary, 
there is a propriety in using mpds of 
the faith which aspires towards Christ, 


and eis of the love which is exerted 
upon men. Some good copies read 
eis here in both clauses. 

6. Gras x.r..] to be taken with 
pveiay cov Trovovpevos k.T.r., aS giving 
the aim and purport of St Paul’s 
prayer. Others connect it with jy 
éxes, a8 if it described the tendency 
of Philemon’s faith, ‘ita ut’; but, even 
if daws could bear this meaning, such 
a connexion is altogether harsh and 
improbable. 

7 kowovia k.7.A.] Of many interpre- 
tations which have been, or might be, 
given of these words, two seem to de- 
serve consideration. (1)‘ Your friendly 
offices and sympathies, your kindly 
deeds of charity, which spring from 
your faith’: comp. Phil. i. 5 emi rf 
kowavia Upav els To evayyéArov, Heb. 
xiii. 16 tis evmotias Kal Kowwvias, 
Whence kowowvia is uged especially 
of ‘contributions, almsgiving’, Rom. 
EV. 226, 62. Cor. vill 4,, 1X92 35 (2) 
‘Your communion with God through 
faith’: comp. 1 Cor. i, 9, and see also 
2 Cor. xiii. 13, 1 Joh. i. 3, 6,7. The 
parallel passages strongly support 
the former sense. Other interpreta- 
tions proposed are, ‘The participa- 
tion of others in your faith, through 
your example’, or ‘ your communion 
with me, springing out of your faith’. 
This last, which is widely received, is 
suggested by ver. 17; ef xowovos ei, 
noi, kata thy miotiv, writes Chrysos- 
tom, kai xara Ta GdAa odeires Kowo- 
veiv (comp. Tit. i. 3 cata xowny ricrw): 
but it is out of place in this context. 

evepyns| ‘effective’. The Latin 
translators must have read évapyns, 
for they render the word evidens or 
manifesta. Jerome (ad. loc.) speaks 
of evidens as the reading of the Latin, 
and eficax of the Greek text. The 
converse error appears in the mss of 
Clem. Hom. xvii. 5, évépyea for évdp- 


336 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. [7 


ea bd x “4 9 4 “A \ 4 \ / 

nuiv ets Xpiotov. 7 yapav yap ToANAHY Eoyov kat Tapa- 
\ ae , e/ \ , = 

KAnow €mt TH ayaTy Gov, OTL TA OTAAYXVA THY ayiwY 


/ \ ~ > / 
avAaTETTAVTaL Ola TOU, ddEAPE. 
6. ev vyiv els Xpiordv. 


yeca. See also similar vy. ll in Orig. 
c. Cels. 1.25, ii. 52, iv. 89. 

ev emvyvocet K.t.A.] ‘in the perfect 
knowledge of every good thing’. This 
entyvwots, involving as it does the 
complete appropriation of all truth 
and the unreserved identification with 
God’s will, is the goal and crown of 
the believer’s course. The Apostle 
does not say ‘in the possession’ or ‘in 
the performance’ but ‘in the know- 
ledge of every good thing’; for, in this 
higher sense of knowledge, to know is 
both to possess and to perform. In 
all the epistles of the Roman capti- 
vity St Paul’s prayer for his corre- 
spondents culminates in this word 
émiyvwors: see the note on Col. i. 9. 
This éiyvwors is the result and the 
reward of faith manifesting itself in 
deeds of love, éras 9 xowwvia tis mi- 
orews x.t.A. For the sequence comp. 
Ephes. iv. 13 eis thy évornta tis. wi- 
oTews kal Ths éemtyvdceas k.T.A., Tit. 
i. I kata miotww éxexTav Ocov kal eni- 
yvoow adnbeias ths Kar’ evoeBecav. 
The émiyvaors therefore which the 
Apostle contemplates is Philemon’s 
own. There is no reference to the 
force of his example on others, as it 
is sometimes interpreted, ‘in their re- 
cognition of every good thing which 
is wrought in you’. 

rou ev nuiv| ‘which is in us Chris- 
tians’, ‘which is placed within our 
reach by the Gospel’; i.e. the whole 
range of spiritual blessings, the com- 
plete cycle of Christian truth. If the 
reading rod év vpiv be adopted, the 
reference will be restricted to the 
brotherhood at Colosse, but the 
meaning must be substantially the 
same. Though vuiv has somewhat 
better support, we seem to be justi- 
fied in preferring jyiv as being much 
more expressive. In such cases the 


Mss are of no great authority; and in 
the present instance scribes would be 
strongly tempted to alter nui into 
vpiv from a misapprehension of the 
sense, and a wish to apply the words 
to Philemon and his household. A 
similar misapprehension doubtless led 
in some copies to the omission of rod, 
which seemed to be superfluous but 
is really required for the sense. 

ets Xprorov] ‘unto Christ’, i.e. lead- 
ing to Him as the goal. The words 
should be connected not with rov év 
nuiv, but with the main statement of 
the sentence évepyns yevnrat k.T.A. 

7. xapav yap] This sentence again 
must not be connected with the words 
immediately preceding. It gives the 
motive of the Apostle’s thanksgiving 
mentioned in ver. 4. ‘“his thanks- 
giving was the outpouring of gratitude 
for the joy and comfort that he had 
received in his bonds from the report 
of Philemon’s generous charity. The 
connexion therefore is evyapiota To 
Oc@ pov...... dxovwy gov TY ayarnv 
+--xapay yap moAAqy éoxov k.t-r. For 
xapav the received text (Steph. but not 
Elz.) reads xapiv, which is taken to 
mean ‘thankfulness’? (1 Tim. i. 12, 
2 Tim. i. 3); but this reading is abso- 
lutely condemned by the paucity of 
ancient authority. 

ra omdayxval| ‘the heart, the spi- 
rits’, On ra omdayxva, the nobler vis- 
cera, regarded as the seat of the emo- 
tions, see the note on Phil. i.8. Here 
the prominent idea is that of terror, 
grief, despondency, etc. 

dvaréravrat| ‘have been relieved, 
refreshed’, comp. ver. 20. The com- 
pound dvaraverOa expresses a tem- 
porary relief, as the simple mavec@a 
expresses a final cessation: Plut. Vie. 
Lucull. 5 moddGv adits dvakwotvrav 
Tov MiOpidarixov modeynov hn Mdpxos 


8, 9] 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


337 


8 Ao moAAnv év Xpiorte wappnolay exw émiTacocey 
ool TO aviKov, 90a THY ayaTnv padroy mapakado, 
TowvTos wy ws TlavAos mpesBuTns vuvi dé Kai déopuos 

g. viv dé Kal déopuos. 


avuTov ov metavaOat add’ avaTe- 
mavoOat. Thus it implies ‘relaxation, 
refreshment’, as a preparation for the 
renewal of labour or suffering. It is 
an Ignatian as well as a Pauline word; 
Ephes. 2, Smyrn. 9, 10, 12, Trail. 12, 
Magn. 15, Rom. to. 

adekpé] For the appeal suggested 
by the emphatic position of the word, 
comp. Gal. vi. 18. See also the note 
on ver. 20 below. 

8—17. ‘Encouraged by these tid- 
ings of thy loving spirit, I prefer to 
entreat, where I might command. My 
office gives me authority to dictate 
thy duty in plajn language, but love 
bids me plead as a suitor. Have I not 
indeed a right to command—I Paul 
whom Christ Jesus long ago commis- 
sioned as His ambassador, and whom 
now He has exalted to the rank of His 
prisoner? But I entreat thee. I have 
a favour to ask for a son of my own— 
one doubly dear to me, because I be- 
came his father amidst the sorrows of 
my bonds. I speak of Onesimus, who 
in times past was found wholly untrue 
to his name, who was then far from 
useful to thee, but now is useful to 
thee—yea, and to myself also. Him I 
send back to thee, and I entreat thee 
to take him into thy favour, for in 
giving him I am giving my own heart. 
Indeed I would gladly have detained 
him with me, that he might minister 
to me on thy behalf, in these bonds 
with which the Gospel has invested 
me. But I had scruples. I did not 
wish to do anything without thy direct 
consent; for then it might have seem- 
ed (though it were only seeming) as if 
thy kindly offices had been rendered 
by compulsion and not of free will. 
So I have sent him back. Indeed it 
may have been God’s providential de- 
sign, that he was parted from thee for 


COL. 


a season, only that thou mightest re- 
gain him for ever; that he left thee as 
a slave, only that he might return to 
thee a beloved brother. This indeed 
he is to me most of all; and, if to me, 
must he not be so much more to thee, 
both in worldly things and in spiritual? 
If therefore thou regardest me as a 
friend and companion, take him to 
thee, as if he were myself” 

8. Avo] ice. ‘Seeing that I have 
these proofs of thy love, I prefer to 
entreat, where I might command’, 

mappnoiav| ‘confidence’, literally 
‘freedom’ or ‘privilege of speech’; 
see the notes on Col. ii. 15, Ephes. iii. 
12, It was his Apostolic authority 
which gave him this right to command 
in plain language. Hence the addi- 
tion €v Xpiore. 

To avixov|] ‘what is fitting’: see 
the note on Col. iii. 18. 

9. dia tiv dyarny] ‘for love’s sake’, 
i.e. ‘having respect to the claims of 
love’. It is not Philemon’s love (vv. 
5, 7), nor St Paul’s own love, but love 
absolutely, love regarded as a principle 
which demands a deferential respect. 

TowouTos @y x.t.r.] ‘being such an 
one as Paul an ambassador, and now 
also a prisoner, of Christ Jesus’. 
Several questions of more or less diffi- 
culty arise on these words. (1) Is 
towovtos wy to be connected with or 
separated from ws IlatAos x.r.\.? If se-" 
parated, rovodros wy will mean ‘though 
as an Apostle I am armed with such 


authority’, and ws Taddos x.t.A. will 


describe his condescension to entreaty, 
‘yet as simply Paul, etc. But the 
other construction is much more pro- 
bable for the following reasons. (qa) 
TowuvTos @v SO used, implying, as it 
would, something of a personal boast, 
seems unlike St Paul’s usual mode 
of speaking. Several interpreters in- 


22 


338 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON, 


[10 


Ba ay Tl; es 10 a AW Z \ ~ 9 ~ , 
plo7 OV WOOU. TANAKA @ TE TEGL TOU € [Ou TEKVOU, 


deed, taking rootros @v separately, 
refer it to ver. 8, ‘seeing that this is 
my disposition’, i.e. ‘seeing that I 
desire to entreat’; but rovotros sug- 
gests more than an accidental impulse. 
(b) As rovodros and os are correlative 
words, itismorenatural to connectthem 
together; comp. Plato Symp. 181 E 
mpocavayxately TO TOLOLTOY woTrEp Kal 
xr.A., Alexis (Meineke Fragm. Com. 
IIL p. 399) rowdro to (nv eotw worep 
oi kvBo.. Such passages are an answer 
to the objection that rovodros would 
require some stronger word than as, 
such as oios, 6s, or ore. Even after 
such expressions a8 6 avrés, TO auro, 
instances occur of ws (domep): see 
Lobeck PAryn. p. 427, Stallbaum on 
Plat. Phoed. 86 A. Indeed it may be 
questioned whether any word but ws 
would give exactly St Paul’s meaning 
here. (c) All the Greek commentators 
without a single exception connect 
the words rowitros ev ws TatXos to- 
gether. (2) Assuming that the words 
To.ovTos @y ws xk.7.A. are taken toge- 
ther, should they be connected with 
the preceding or the following sen- 
tence? On the whole the passage is 
more forcible, if they are linked to the 
preceding words. In this case the re- 
sumptive apaxade@ (ver. 10) begins a 
new sentence, which introduces a fresh 
subject. The Apostle has before de- 
scribed the character of his appeal; 
he now speaks of its object. (3) In 
either connexion, what is the point of 
the words rowitos dy ws TavAos 
xt.A.? Do they lay down the grounds 
of his entreaty, or do they enforce his 
right to command? If the view of 
mpeoBurns adopted below be correct, 
the latter must be the true interpre- 
tation; but even though mpeoBurns 
be taken in its ordinary sense, this 
will still remain the more probable 
alternative; for, while mpeoBurns and 
Séopuos would suit either entreaty or 
command, the addition Xpicrod *Inaod 
suggests an appeal to authority. 

os Iladdos] The mention of his per- 
sonal name inyolves an assertion of 


authority, as in Ephes. iii. 1; comp. 
Gal. v. 2, with the note there. Theo- 
doret writes, o IlatAov dxovoas tis 
olxoupevns dkovet TOV KNpUKA, ‘yis Kat 
Oadarrns Tov yewpyov, THS ExAoyhs TO 
oKevos, k.T.A. 

mpecBurns] Comparing a passage in 
the contemporary epistle, Ephes. vi. 
20 Unrép ov mpecBevw ev advoe, it 
had occurred to me that we should 
read mpeaBevtns here, before I was 
aware that this conjecture had been 
anticipated by others, e.g. by Bentley 
(Crit. Sacr. p. 93) and by Benson 
(Paraphrase etc. on Six Epistles of 
St Paul, p. 357). It has since been 
suggested independently in Linwood’s 
Observ. gqued. in nonnulla N. T. loca 
1865, and probably. others have enter- 
tained the same thought. Still believ- 
ing that St Paul here speaks of him- 
self as an ‘ambassador’, I now ques- 
tion whether any change is necessary. 
There is reason for thinking that in 
the common dialect apecBiztns may 
have been written indifferently for 
mpeoBevrjs in St Paul’s time; and if 
so, the form here may be due, not to 
some comparatively late scribe, but 
to the original autograph itself or to 
an immediate transcript. In 1 Macc. 
xiv. 21 the Sinaitic ms has oc mpeoBv- 
repo. (a corruption of o. mpeoBura 
ot, for the common reading is oi mpec- 
Bevrai oi); in xiv. 22 it reads apecBu- 
rat Iovdawyv; but in xiii. 21 mpeoBev- 
ras: though in all passages alike the 
meaning is ‘ambassadors’. Again the 
Alexandrian Ms has mpeoBuras in xiii. 
21, but mpeoBevra in xiv. 22, and ot 
moeoBeure ot (i.e. of mpeoBevrat of) in 
xiv. 21. In 2 Macc. xi. 34 this same 
MS has mpeoBure, and the reading of 
the common texts of the Lxx (even 
Tischendorf and Fritzsche) here is 
mpeoBora. Grimm treats it as mean- 
ing ‘ambassadors’, without even no- 
ticing the form. Other mss are also 
mentioned in Holmes and Parsons 
which have the form speoBurns in 
1 Macc. xiii. 21. In 2 Chron. xxxii. 
31 again the word for ‘ambassador’ 


11] 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


339 


e > ~ ~ , , , 
ov [eyo] éyevyvnoa év Tots beapots, Ovnoysov, Tov TrOTE 


is written thus in the Vatican ms, 
though the ¢« is added above the line; 
and here too several mss in Holmes 
and Parsons agree in reading mpec- 
Bvras. Thus it is plain that, in 
the age of our earliest extant Mss 
at all events, the scribes used both 
forms indifferently in this sense. So 
also Eusebius on Isaiah xviii. 2 writes 
6 d€ ’AxvAas mpeoBitas e&€8wxev 
ei a@v, ‘O dmoaréAN wv ev Oaddoon Tpeo- 
Buras. Again in Ignat. Smyrn. 11 
OeompeaButns is the form in all the 
mss of either recension, though the 
meaning is plainly ‘an ambassador 
of God.” So too in Clem. Hom. Ep. 
Clem. 6 the mss read o tas adnOeias 
mpeaBurns, Which even Schwegler and 
Dressel tacitly retain. See also Ap- 
pian Samn. 7, where mpeoBevrov is due 
to the later editors, and Acta Thomae 
§ 10, where there is a v. 1. mpeoBirtns 
in at least one ms. And probably ex- 
amples of this substitution might be 
largely multiplied. 

The main reason for adopting this 
rendering is the parallel passage, which 
suggests it very strongly. The diffi- 
culty which many find in St Paul’s 
describing himself as an old man is 
not serious. On any showing he must 
have been verging on sixty at this 
time and may have been some years 
older. <A life of unintermittent toil 
and suffering, such as he had lived, 
would bring a premature decay; and 
looking back on a long eventful life, 
he would naturally so think and speak 
of himself. Thus Roger Bacon (Opus 
Majust. 10, p. 15,ed. Jebb; Opus Ter- 
tium p. 63, ed. Brewer) writes ‘me 
senem’, ‘nos senes’, in 1267, though 
he appears to have been not more 
than fifty-two or fifty-three at the 
time and lived at least a quarter of a 
century after (see E. Charles Roger 
Bacon, Sa Vie etc. pp. 4.8q., 40). So 
too Scott in his fifty-fifth year speaks 
of himself as ‘an old grey man’ 
and ‘aged’ (Lockhart’s Life vit. pp. 
327, 357). It is more difficult to 


understand how St Paul should make 
his age a ground of appeal to Phi- 
lemon who, if Archippus was his 
son, cannot have been much younger 
than himself. The commentator Hi- 
lary says that the Apostle appeals 
to his friend ‘quasi coaevum aeta- 
tis’, but this idea is foreign to the 
context. The comment of Theophy- 
lact is, rovovros ov, dnow, m pea Bev- 
TiS, Kat ovTws a&ios axoverOa, ws 
eikos IlavAov mpeoButny, touréote Kab 
amo rov O:dackadtkov aki@paros Kat 
TOU XpOvouTd aideousoy ExovTa k.T.A. 
Does he mean to include both mean- 
ings in mpeoBurns? Or is he accident- 
ally borrowing the term ‘ambassador’ 
from some earlier commentator with- 
out seeing its bearing ? 

kat d€opu0s| Another title to respect. 
The mention of his bonds might sug- 
gest either an appeal for commisera- 
tion or a claim of authority: see the 
note on ver. 13. Hero the addition of 
Xpicrov “Incod invests it with the cha- 
racter of an official title, and so gives 
prominence to the latter idea. To his 
old office of ‘ambassador’ Christ has 
added the new title of‘ prisoner.’ The 
genitive Xpicrod Inood belongs to 
mpeaBurns as well as to déoptos, and 
in both cases describes the person who 
confers the office or rank. 

10, mapakad@ cex.t.A.] St Chryso- 
stom remarks on the Apostle’s with- 
holding the name, until he has favour- 
ably disposed Philemon both to the 
request and to the object of it; tooov- 
tos 6€ mpodedvas avrod thy wWuxny, 
ovde evOéws éveéBadte TO Svopa, adda 
TocavTnyv Toinodpevos airnow avaBad- 
Aerac x.t.A. The whole passage de- 
serves to be read. 

ov éyévynoa k.t.A.] So too 1 Cor. iv. 
15. In Gal. iv. 19 he speaks of him- 
self as suffering a mother’s pangs for 
his children in the faith. Comp. Phil. 
Leg. ad Cat. 8 (i. p. 554) éeuov eore 
Tov Maxpavos épyov T'aios* paAXov avrov 
7) ovN NITOV TaY yovewy yeyevynka. 

ev tois Seopois] He was doubly 

22—2 


240 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. [12 


vd 7 ra 
Got aypioTov, vuvi o€ [kai] ool Kai éuol EeVvYpNTTOV? OV 


a0 UE / > y / \ , 
averreprba col. “avTov, TovTéesTI Ta Eua OTAaYYVA, 


dear to the Apostle, as being the child 
of his sorrows. 

’Ovicipov] for Ovncipov by attrac- 
tion, as e.g. Mark vi. 16 dv éyd drexe- 
dadica Iaavyny, odrds €or. Hence- 
forward he will be true to his name, 
no longer avovnros, but ovnoipos: comp. 
tuth i. 20 ‘Call me not Naomi (plea- 
sant) but call me Mara (bitter) etc.’ 
The word dypyoros is a synonyme for 
avovntos, Demosth. Phil. ili. § 40 (p. 
12!) dravta tadta dypnora ampakra 
dvoévnta «.7.Xr.: comp. Pseudophocyl. 
37 (34) xpnoros ornoipos é€ort, pidos 
& ddicov dvovnros. The significance 
of names was a matter of special im- 
portance among the ancients. Hence 
they were careful in the inauguration 
of any great work that only those who 
had bona nomina, prospera nomina, 
Jausta nomina, should take part: Cie. 
de Div. 1-45, Flin. WN. A, xxviii. 2. 5, 
Tac. Hist. iv. 53. On the value at- 
tached to names by the ancients, and 
more especially by the Hebrews, see 
Farrar Chapters on Language p. 267 
sq-, Where a large number of instances 
are collected. Here however there is 
nothing more than an affectionate 
play on a name, such as might occur 
to any one at any time: comp. Euseb. 
fH. E. V. 24.6 Eipnvaios depavupos tis 
dy th mpoonyopia, a’t@ te TH Tpo- 
7® eipnvomrotos. 

II, dypyorov,evxpyaroy | Comp. Plat. 
Resp. iii. p. AI1 A xpnowmov €& aypn- 
arov...eroingev. Of these words, aypy- 
otos is found only here, evypyoros 
occurs also 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv. 11, in the 
New Testament. Both appear in the 
Lxx. In Matt. xxv. 30a slave is de- 
scribed as dypeios. For the mode of 
expression comp. Ephes. v. 15 pa) ds 
acodot add’ es coho. Some have dis- 
covered in these words a reference to 
xptoros, aS commonly pronounced ypn- 
otros; comp. Theoph. ad Autoé, i. 12 
TO xpiorov Od Kal evypnotoy x.T.X. 


and see Philippians p.16 note. Any 


such allusion however, even ifit should 
not involve an anachronism, is far too 
recondite to be probable here. The 
play on words is exhausted in the 
reference to ’Ovncipos. 

kai euoi] An after-thought ; comp. 
Phil. ii. 27 7Aenoev adrév, ovK adrov 
d€ povoy adda kat évé. This accounts 
for the exceptional order, where ac- 
cording to common Greek usage the 
first person would naturally precede 
the second. 

dvereppa] ‘I send back’, the epis- 
tolary aorist used for the present: see 
the notes on Phil. ii. 25,28. So too ¢ypa- 
wa, ver. 19, 21 (see the note). It is 
clear both from the context here, and 
from Col. iv. 7—9, that Onesimus ac- 
companied the letter. 

12. avrov x.t.A.] The reading of 
the received text is ov Oé adrov, rour- 
€oTt Ta éud omdayxva, mpoocdafPod. 
The words thus supplied doubtless 
give the right construction, but must 
be rejected as deficient in authority. 
The accusative is suspended; the sen- 
tence changes its form and loses itself 
in a number of dependent clauses; 
and the main point is not resumed till 
ver. 17 mpocAaBov avrov ws eye, the 
grammar haying been meanwhile dis- 
located. For the emphatic position 
of avrov comp. John ix. 21, 23, Ephes. 
Ie 2s 

ta epa orrayxval ‘my very heart’, 
a mode of speech common in all lan- 
guages. For the meaning of omAayxva 
see the note on Phil. i. 8. Comp. 
Test. Patr. Zab. 8, Neph. 4, in both 
which passages Christ is called 76 
omAayxvoy of God, and in the first it 
is said ¢yere evomAayxviav...iva Kal 6 
Kuptos eis twas omrayxuobeis eXenon 
Uuas’ dott xalye em éoydTav nuepav 
0 Geos amooréAXet TO OMAayXVOV av- 
Tov emt ths yns Kt.A. Otherwise 
Ta éua omAdyxva has been interpreted 
‘my son’ (comp. ver. 10 ov éyévynoa 
k.r.A.), and it is so rendered here in 


13, 14] 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


341 


13 rat 9 \ > , \ ’ \ / / e \ 
OV Eyw €BouNomny Tpos EMUAUTOV KATENVELY, lva UTTEO 
n a= na ~ land / A 
Gov mot dlakovn ev TOls SEooIs TOU EvayyeALou: “+ ywpis 
t 


the Peshito. For this sense of om\ay- 
xva comp. Artemid. Oneir. i. 44 of 
maides omdayxva Aéyovra, tb. V. 57 
ra O€ omAayxva [éojpave] rov maida, 
oUT@ yap kal Tov maida KaXetv bos eori. 
With this meaning it is used not less 
of the father than of the mother; 
e.g. Philo de Joseph. 5 (11. p. 45) Anp- 
ow evoyia Kal Ooivn yéyovas yevoape- 
vols...TOY Euav omdrayxvev, Basil. Op. 
IIL. p. 501 6 ev mporetverar ta oTAdy- 
xva tinny trav tpopev. The Latin vis- 
cera occurs still more frequently in 
this sense, as the passages quoted in 
Wetstein and Suicer show. For this 
latter interpretation there is much to 
be said. But it adds nothing to the 
previous oy éyévynoa x.t.d., and (what 
is a more serious objection) it is 
wholly unsupported by St Paul’s 
usage elsewhere, which connects 
omayxva with a different class of 
ideas: see e.g. VV. 7, 20. 

13. é€Bovdouny] ‘I was of a mina’, 
distinguished from 76éAnca, which 
follows, in two respects; (1) While 
Bovrecba involves the idea of ‘ pur- 
pose, deliberation, desire, mind’, 6é- 
Aew denotes simply ‘ will’; Epictet. i. 
12. 13 BovAopat ypadev, ws Gedo, TO 
Aiwvos dvopa; ov* dda OidacKopa Oé- 
Aew ws Sei ypaperba, ili. 24. 54 Tov- 
tov Oéde opay, kat ov BovAe oer. (2) 
The change of tenses is significant. 
The imperfect implies a tentative, in- 
choate process; while the aorist de- 
scribes a definite and complete act. 
The will stepped in and put an end 
to the inclinations of the mind. In- 
deed the imperfect of this and similar 
verbs are not infrequently used where 
the wish is stopped at the outset by 
some antecedent consideration which 
renders it impossible, and thus prac- 
tically it is not entertained at all: e.g. 
Arist. Ran. 866 ¢Bovddopunv pev otk 
epifew evOdde, Antiph. de Herod. caed. 
I (p. 129) €BovAouny pev...viv Sé K.7.A. 5 
Isaeus de Arist. haer. 1. (p. 79) éBovdd- 


pnv pev...vov S€ ovK e& toov xkt.d, 
Misch. c. Ctes. 2 (p. 53) €Bovdopuny 
pev ovv, @ ’AOnvaiot...emerd) Sé mavra 
«.7.A., Lucian Abd. I é€BovAdunyv pev 
ovy thy tatpikny K.T.A....vuvt 52 K.T.A.3 
see Kihner § 392 0 (11. p. 177). So 
Acts xxv. 22 éBovAcunv Kal avros 
Tov avOpamov dxovoa, not ‘I should 
wish’ (as Winer § xli. p. 353) but ‘I 
could have wished’, i.e. ‘if it had not 
been too much to ask’. Similarly 
nOedov Gal. iy. 20, nvyounv Rom. ix. 3. 
See Revision of the English New 
Testament p. 96. So here a not im- 
probable meaning would be not ‘I 
was desirous’, but‘I could have de- 
sired’. 

karéxew] ‘to detain’ or ‘retain’, 
opposed to the following dméxns, ver. 
suis 

vmep gov k.7.A.] Comp. Phil. ii. 30 
iva dvarAnpoon TO vuav voTépnpa Tis 
mpos pe etroupyias, I Cor. Xvi. 17 TO 
VpETEpov VoTEepnua avToOL dvemAnpacay. 
See the note on Col.i.7. With a de- 
licate tact the Apostle assumes that 
Philemon would have wished to per- 
form these friendly offices in person, 
if it had been possible. 

ev tots Secpois| An indirect appeal 
to his compassion: see vv. I, 9, 10. 
In this instance however (as in ver. 9) 
the appeal assumes a tone of author- 
ity, by reference to the occasion of his 
bonds. For the genitive rod evayye- 
Alov, describing the origin, comp. Col. 
i. 23 THs eAridos Tov evayyedlov. They 
were not shackles which self had 
riveted, but a chain with which 
Christ had invested him. Thus they 
were as a badge of office or a decora- 
tion of honour. In this respect, as in 
others, the language of St Paul is 
echoed in the epistles of St Ignatius. 
Here too entreaty and triumph alter- 
nate; the saint’s bonds are at once 
a ground for appeal and a theme of 
thanksgiving: Trail. 12 mapaxadet 
vuas Ta Seoud pov, Philad. 7 paptus 


342 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


[15, 16 


\ ~ lod fe Nw | pwawd - e/ \ € 
O€ THS Hs yveopns OUcEV nena Toujoat, twa pa} os 


KaTa dvarykny TO ayabov oou ns adANa@ KaTa EkoUGctov" 
Sraxee rap eal pon éxwoploOn Tpos wpay, ive QiwVvLoy 


auTov aTEXNS, * 6 oUKETL WS 
d€é pou ev d dédepat, Ephes. 11 év @ (i.€. 
Xpior@ Inco’) Ta Seopa mepipepa, 
Tous mVEUpaTLKOS papyapiras, Smyrn. 
10 dvriyuxov vuay TO Tyeda pou Kal 
ra Seopa pov, Magn. 1 év ois mepipepw 
Seopois ada Tas exkAnogias; see also 
Ephes. 1, 3, 21, Magn. 12, Trall. 1,5, 
10, Smyrn. 4, 11, Polyc. 2, Rom. 1, 4, 
5, Philad. 5. 

14. xopis K.T.A.] § without thy ap- 
proval, consent’; Polyb. ii. 21. 1, 3, 
xopis THs oeréepas yvopns, xapis THs 
avrod yvouns: similarly dvev [ris] 
yvopns, &g. Polyb. xxi. 8.7, Ign. 
Polye. 4. 

os kata avaykny] St Paul does not 
say xara dvayxny but ds xara avaykny. 
He will not suppose that it would 
really be by constraint; but it must 
not even wear the appearance (as) of 
being so; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 17 os év 
ddpoovyy. See Plin. Hp.ix. 21 ‘Vereor 
ne videar non rogare sed cogere’; 
where, as here, the writer is asking 
his correspondent to forgive a domes- 
tic who has offended. 

To dyabov cov] ‘the benefit arising 
from thee’, i.e. ‘the good which I 
should get from the continued pre- 
sence of Onesimus, and which would 
be owing to thee’. 

kata exovo.oyv] asin Num. xv. 3. The 
form xa@’ éxovoiav is perhaps more 
classical: Thue. viii. 27 xa@’ éxovciav 
4} mavu ye avayky, The word under- 
stood in the one case appears to be 
rpomov (Porphyr. de Abst. i. 9 xaé’ 
éxovotov tporov, comp. Eur. Med. 751 
Exovoi@ tpor@); in the other, yrouny 
(so éxovoia, €& Exovaias, etc.) : comp. 
Lobeck Phryn. p. 4. 

15. taxa yap x.7-A.] The yap ex- 
plains an additional motive which 
guided the Apostle’s decision: ‘I did 
not dare to detain him, however 


SovNov, dANa UaeEp SovAoy, 


much I desired it. I might have de- 
feated the purpose for which God in 
His good providence allowed him to 
leave thee’. 

éywpic6n] ‘ He does not say’, writes 
Chrysostom, ‘ For this cause he fled, 
but For this cause he was parted: 
for he would appease Philemon by. a 
more euphemistic phrase. And again 
he does not say he parted himself, 
but he was parted: since the design 
was not Onesimus’ own to depart for 
this or that reason: just as Joseph 
also, when excusing his brethren, 
says (Gen. xlv. 5) God did send me 
hither? 

mpos w@pav] ‘for an hour,’ ‘for a 
short season’: 2 Cor. vii. 8, Gal. ii. 5. 
‘It was only a brief moment after all’, 
the Apostle would say, ‘compared 
with the magnitude of the work 
wrought in it. He departed a repro- 
bate; he returns a saved man. He 
departed for afew months ; he returns 
to be with you for all time and for 
eternity’. This sense of aiévoy must 
not be arbitrarily limited. Since he 
left, Onesimus had obtained eternal 
life, and eternal life involves eternal 
interchange of friendship. His ser- 
vices to his old master were no longer 
barred by the gates of death. 

aréxns| In this connexion dméxew 
may bear either of two senses: (1) ‘to 
have back, to have in return’: or (2) 
‘to have to the Sull, to have wholly’, 


- as in Phil. iv. 18 awéyw mavra (see the 


note). In other words the prominent 
idea in the word may be either vresti- 
tution, or completeness. The former 
is the more probable sense here, as 
suggested by xaréyeu in verse 13 and 
by é¢xpio6n in this verse. 

16. os Sovdov] St Paul does not 
say SovAov but ws dSotdAov. It was a 


17—19] 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 343 


> \ 5] , / > , (ig \ cad 
addekhov adyarntov, padioTta éuol, moow Oé padXov 


\ \ > \ 4 > / 
OL Kal EV TapKi Kal EV Kupiw. 


? a 7 
Tet OUV ME EXELS KOL- 


/ ~ > \ ¢ ? / TS 43 4 2Q/ , 
VWwVOV, mTpooAaou avTov ws euer et O€ TL HOlKNOEV OE 


ed / = ? NAD 4 
n opetrel, TOUTO Euar EAAOYA. 


matter of indifference whether he 
were outwardly dSovAos or outwardly 
€\evOepos, since both are one in Christ 
(Col. iii. 11). But though he might 
still remain a slave, he could no longer 
be as a slave. A change had been 
wrought in him, independently of his 
possible manumission: in Christ he 
had become a brother. It should be 
noticed also that the negative is not 
pykért, but ovxére. The negation is 
thus wholly independent of iva...azé- 
xns. It describes not the possible 
view of Philemon, but the actual state 
of Onesimus. The‘nomoreasa slave’ 
is an absolute fact, whether Philemon 
chooses to recognise it or not. 

adeApoy ayamnroyv] Kal Td xpdv@ ke- 
képdaxas Kat TH movotntt, writes Chry- 
sostom, apostrophizing Philemon. 

moow dé paddov x.r.A.] Having first 
said ‘most of all to me’, he goes a 
step further, ‘more than most of all 
to thee’. 

kal ev capki k.r.A.] ‘In both spheres 
alike, in the affairs of this world and 
in the affairs of the higher life.” In 
the former, as Meyer pointedly says, 
Philemon had the brother for a slave; 
in the latter he had the slave for a 
brother: comp. Ign. Zvall. 12 xara 
mavta pe avemavoay capi Te Kal mvev- 


part. 
17. éxeus xowavoyv] ‘thou holdest 


me to be a comrade, an intimate 
Sriend? For this use of €yew comp. 
Luke xiv. 18 exe pe Tapntnuevoy, Phil. 
ii. 29 Tovs rovovrous évTipous ExETE. 
Those are xowvwvoi, who have common 
interests, common feelings, common 
work. 

18—22. ‘Butif hehas done thee 
any injury, or if he stands in thy debt, 
setit downto my account. Hereis my 
signature—Paul—in my own hand- 


9 éywo TlaiXNos éypava 


writing. Accept this as my bond. I 
will repay thee. For I will not in- 
sist, as I might, that thou art indebted 
to me for much more than this; that 
thou owest to me thine own self. Yes, 
dear brother, let me receive from my 
son in the faith such a return as a 
father has a right to expect. Cheer 
and refresh my spirits in Christ. I 
have full confidence in thy compli- 
ance, as I write this ; for I know that 
thou wilt do even more than I ask. 
At the same time also prepare to 
receive me on a visit; for I hope that 
through your prayers I shall be set 
free and given to you once more.’ 

18. ef d¢€ rt] The case is stated 
hypothetically but the words doubt- 
less describe the actual offence of 
Onesimus. He had done his master 
some injury, probably had robbed 
him; and he had fled to escape pun- 
ishment. See the introduction. 

7) odpeider] defining the offence which 
has been indicated in 7diknoev. But 
still the Apostle refrains from using 
the plain word ékA\eyer. He would 
spare the penitent slave, and avoid 
irritating the injured master. 

€AXdyal ‘ reckon it in’, ‘ set it down’. 
This form must be adopted instead of 
é\Aoyet Which stands in the received 
text, as the great preponderance of 
authority shows. On the other hand 
we have eAdoyeirac Rom. v. 13 (though 
with a v.L éAdoyarar), €ANoyoupevav 
Boeckh C.J. no. 1732 A, and évoyei- 
cba Edict. Diocl. in Corp. Inscr. Lat. 
1. p.836. But the word is so rare 
in any form, that these occurrences of 
é\Xoyeiv afford no ground for exclud- 
ing é\\oyayv as impossible. The two 
forms might be employed side by side, 
just as we find edeav and édeceiv, Evpay 
and éupeiv, épwrav and éepwreiv (Matt. 


344 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. [20 


~ gun vel, yw amotiow iva un Néyw ool, OTL Kat 
TH nin xeLpl, ey yn A€yw cor, 


/ 
OeavTOV Mol Tpcc~oPetNers. 7 


/ / , 
yal, adehPe, Eyw cou ovai- 


bd / / f \ y 9 a 
yyy év Kupiw* avaravooy pou Ta omAayxva ev XploTo. 


xy. 23), and the like; see Buttmann 
Ausf. Gramm. § 112 (IL p. 53). The 
word Aoyay, as used by Lucian Lexiph, 
15 (where it is a desiderative ‘to be 
cager to speak’, like dovav, Oavarar, 
appaxar, etc.), has nothing to do with 
the use of €Adoyay here. 

19. é€y® Haddos|] The introduc- 
tion of his own name gives it the cha- 
racter of a formal and binding signa- 
ture: comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 21, Col. iv. 18, 
2 Thess. iii. 17. A signature to a 
deed in ancient or medieval times 
would commonly take this form, éeyad o 
deiva,— I so and so’; where weshould 
omit the marks of the first person. 

éypawa| An epistolary or docu- 
mentary aorist, as in ver. 21; so too 
avérepva ver. 11. See the note on 
éypawa Gal. vi. 11. The aorist is the 
tense commonly used in signatures ; 
e.g. Umeypaya to the conciliar de- 
crees, 

This incidental mention of his auto- 
graph, occurring where it does, 
shows that he wrote the whole letter 
with his own hand. This procedure 
is quite exceptional, just as the pur- 
port of the letter is exceptional. In 
all other cases he appears to have 
employed an amanuensis, only adding 
a few words in his own handwriting 
at the close: see the note on Gal. d.¢. 

iva py eyo] ‘not to say’, as 2 Cor. 
ix. 4. There isa suppressed thought, 
‘though indeed you cannot fairly claim 
repayment’, ‘though indeed you owe 
me (ddeiAers)as muchas this’, on which 
the iva pr x.7.A. is dependent. Hence 
mpocopeires ‘owest besides’; for this 
1s the common meaning of the word. 

ceavrovy] St Paul was his spiritu- 
al father, who had begotten him in 
the faith, and to whom therefore he 
owed his being; comp. Plato Legg. iv. 
Pp. 717 B os Oéuts oeidovta amorivew 


Tu TPOTa Te Kal péyiora oeAnuara... 
vowitew S€, & KéxtTnTat Kat €xel, TavTa 
elvat TOY YEeVvYNGaYTOV...apYopevoy 
aro THs ovcias, SevTepa TUTOU TapaTos, 
Tpita Ta THS Wuyps, dmotivoyta Oa- 
velopata K.T.A. 

20, vai| introducing an affectionate 
appeal as in Phil. iv. 3 vai épwrd Kat 
oe. 

addedpe] Itis the entreaty of a bro- 
ther to a brother on behalf of a bro- 
ther (ver. 16). For the pathetic ap- 
peal involved in the word see the 
notes on Gal. iii, 15, vi. 1, 18; and 
comp. ver. 7. 

éyd] ‘I seem to be entreating for 
Onesimus; but I am pleading for my- 
self; the favour wiil be done to me’; 
comp. ver. 17 mpocAaBov avrov ds eye. 
The emphatic ¢yw identifies the cause 
of Onesimus with his own. ° 

cov ovaipny] ‘may I have satis- 
JSaction, find comfort in thee’, i.e. ‘may 
I receive such a return from thee, as 
a father has a right to expect from 
his child’ The common use of tho 
word ovaiuny would suggest the 
thought of filial offices; eg. Arist. 
Thesm. 469 ovtws ovaiuny trav TéK- 
vov, Lucian Philops. 27 mpos thy 
oy tov viéwy, ovTws dvaipny, en, 
rourov, Ps-Ignat. Hero 6 ovaipny cov, 
matdlov mobewor, Synes. Ep. 44 otra 
THs tepas Pitocodias ovaipny kal mpoc- 
éTL TOY TaLOlwy Tay é€uavrod, With 
other passages quoted in Wetstein. 
So too for ovacOa, dynos, compare 
Eur. Med. 1025 sq. mpiv ofov dva- 
oGat... GAdkws Gp vpas, @ TéKY, e&e- 
Opewapnv, Alc. 333 ddis dé waidor 
Tavd Ovnao.y evxopnat Bevis yeverOat, 
Philem. Jnc. 64 (Iv. p. 55 Meineke) 
ETEKES ME, PTEP, Kal YEvoLTO ToL TEK- 
vov dynos, womep kal Sixaidy éeoti 
oo, Ecclus, xxx. 2 0 maidevav Tov 
vidv avrod ovnaetat em aro (the 


BI, 22 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


345 


an \ mA the a ” L , BIS Y \ 
*Vlerowws TH virakon cou Eypatla oot, Eldws OTL Kal 
L é 


¢ \ \ / / 
uTep a EYW TOLNCELS. 


3 eae Oc 


\ ¢€ , / 
Kal éTOimace uot 


Eeviav’ éArriCw yap OTe dia TwWY TpoTEVYwY UMaV ya- 
S # x 


pig Oijcomat piv. 


only passage in the Luxx where the 
word occurs). The prayer cvaipny cov, 
Ovaipny vor, etc., occurs several times 
in Ignatius; Polyc.1, 6, Magn. 2, 12, 
Ephes.2. It isnot unlikely that ovai- 


pynv here involves a reference to the. 


name Onesimus; see the note on ver. 
11. The Hebrew fondness for playing 
on names makes such an allusion at 
least possible. 

ev Kupia| As he had begotten Phi- 
lemon ¢v Kupio (comp. I Cor. iv. 15, 17), 
so it was ev Kupi that he looked for 
the recompense of filial offices. 

avaravoov k.t.A.] See the note ver. 7. 

21. éypaa] ‘I write’: see the note 
on ver. 19. 

dmep @ A€yw «.t.A.] What was the 
thought upmost inthe Apostle’s mind 
when he penned these words? Did 
he contemplate the manumission of 
Onesimus? If so, the restraint which 
he imposes upon himself is signifi- 
cant. Indeed throughout this epistle 
the idea would seem to be present to 
- his thoughts, though the word never 
passes his lips. This reserve is emi- 
nently characteristic of the Gospel. 
Slavery is never directly attacked as 
such, but principles are inculcated 
which must prove fatal to it. 

22. dua de x.7A.] When St Paul 
first contemplated visiting Rome, he 
had intended, after leaving the me- 
tropolis, to pass westward into Spain; 
Rom. xv. 24, 28. But by this time he 
appears to have altered his plans, pur- 
posing first to revisit Greece and Asia 
Minor. Thus in Phil. ii. 24 he looks 
forward to seeing the Philippians 
shortly; while here he contemplates a 
visit to the Churches of the Lycus 
valley. 

There is a gentle compulsion in this 
mention of a personal visit to Colossze. 
The Apostle would thus be able to 


sce for himself that Philemon had not 
disappointed his expectations. Simi- 
larly Serapion in Eus. 4. £, vi. 12 
mpoodokaré me év Taxel. 

Eeviay| ‘alodging’; comp. Clem. 
Flom. xii. 2 mpodéwow ras Eevias éroi- 
pagovres. So the Latin parare hospi- 
tium Cic. ad Att. xiv. 2, Mart. Ep. 
ix. 1. This latter passage, ‘Vale et 
para hospitium’, closely resembles St 
Paul’s language here. In the expres- 
sion before us £evia is probably the 
place of entertainment: but in such 


_ ‘phrases as xaheiv emt Evia, mapaxadeiv 


emt Eeviav, hporrigew Eevias, and the 
like, it denotes the offices of hospital- 
ity. The Latin hospitium also in- 
cludes both senses. The é&evia, as a 
lodging, may denote either quarters 
in aninn or a room ina private house: 
see Philippians p.9. For the latter 
comp.. Plato Tim. 20 © mapa Kpuiriav 
mpos Tov fevdva, ov Kal katradvouer, 
ddixopeba, In this case the response 
would doubtless be a hospitable recep- 
tion in Philemon’s home; but the 
request does not assume so much as 
this. 

xXapicOjooua]| ‘I shall be granted 
to you. The grant (yapifec@a) of 
one person to another, may be for 
purposes either (1) of destruction, as 
Acts xxv. II ovdeis pe SUvarat avrois 
xXapicacGa (comp. yer. 16), or (2) of 
preservation, as Acts iii. 14 7rnocacbe 
avipa ovéa xapicOjvac viv, and 
here. 

23—25. ‘Epaphras my fellow-cap- 
tive in Christ Jesus salutes you. As 
do also Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, 
and Luke, my fellow-labourers. The 
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with 
thee and thy household, and sanctify 
the spirit of you all,’ 

23 sq. For these salutations see 
the notes on Col. iv. 10osq. Epaphras 


346 


EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


[23—25 


23? , , ’ ~ ¢e l4 , 9 
AomaceTat oe Emrappas O ouvatypuadwTos jou év 

”~ 3) mn 3 wn ~ 
Xpistw “Incov, **Mapxos, Apiotrapyos, Anuas, Aouxas, 


ol guvEepyol jou. 


*5*H yapis Tov Kupiou [ipo | Inoov Xpixrov mera 


~ Pe ~ 
TOU TTVEUMATOS UMW. 


is mentioned first because he was a 
Colossian (Col.iv. 12) and, as the evan- 
gelist of Colossze (see p. 29 sq.), doubt- 
less well known to Philemon. Of the 
four others Aristarchus and Mark be- 
longed to the Circumcision (Col. iv. 11) 
while Demas and Luke were Gentile 
Christians. All these were of Greek 
or Asiatic origin and would probably 
be well known to Philemon, at least 
by name. On the other hand Jesus 
Justus, who is honourably mentioned 
in the Colossian letter (iv. 11), but 


passed over here, may have been a 
Roman Christian. 

6 cuvatxpadatos| On the possible 
meanings of this title see Col. iv. 10, 
where it is given not to Epaphras but 
to Aristarchus, 

25. ‘H xapis «.7.A.] The same form 
of farewell as in Gal. vi. 18; comp. 
2 Tim. iy, 22. 

vpov]| The persons whose names 
are mentioned in the opening saluta- 
tion. 


DISSERTATIONS. 


On some points connected with the Essenes. 


I. 
THE NAME ESSENE. 


if 
ORIGIN AND AFFINITY OF THE ESSENES. 


Tif, 
ESSENISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 


I. 
THE NAME ESSENE. 


The name is variously written in Greek : Various 


: , oe aie ... forms of 
1. ‘Eoonvos: Joseph. Ant. xiii. 5. 9, xili. 10. 6, XV. 10. 5, XViil. the name 


Tae RE Fae Bl ahr Vee 2s) Plinth W: A ag ay Gree 
(Essenus); Dion Chrys. in Synes. Dion 3; Hippol. Haer. 

ix. 18, 28 (MS éoyvos); Epiphan. Haer. p. 28 sq., 127 (ed. 

Pe, )s 


2. “Eooatos: Philo 1. pp. 457, 471, 632 (ed. Mang.); Hegesip- 
pus in Kuseb. H. H. iv. 22; Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. 11. So 
Loovslopepl ad. We 7.3, 1). 20, 4; iit. 2. 1+ Ant. Xv.. TOA: 
though in the immediate context of this last passage he 
writes "Eoonvos, if the common texts may be trusted. 


3. ‘Oocatos: Epiphan. Haer. pp. 40 sq., 125, 462. The common 
texts very frequently make him write “‘Ocoynvds, but see 
Dindorf’s notes, Epiphan. Op. 1. pp. 380, 425. With Epi- 
phanius the Essenes are a Samaritan, the Osseans a Judaic 
sect. He has evidently got his information from two distinct 
sources, and does not see that the same persons are intended. 


4. “Ieccatos, Epiphan. Haer. p. 117. From the connexion the 
Same sect again seems to be meant: but owing to the form 
Epiphanius conjectures (ofwac) that the name is derived from 
Jesse, the father of David. 
If any certain example could be produced where the name occurs All etymo- 
in any early Hebrew or Aramaic writing, the question of its deriva- recat 
tion would probably be settled; but in the absence of a single decisive Which de- 


2 rive the 
instance a wide field is opened for conjecture, and critics have not name 


350 THE ESSENES. 


been backward in availing themselves of the license. In discussing 
the claims of the different etymologies proposed we may reject: 
(i) From First : derivations from the Greek. Thus Philo connects the word 
the Greek; Sith gauos ‘holy’: Quod omn. prob. 12, p. 457 ‘Eocatou...d.adékrov 
EdAnviKhs wapwvyzor covoryros, § 13, Pp. 459 Tav “Eocaiwy 7) ooiwy, 
Fragm. p. 632 xadotvrar pév "Eooator, tape tyv dovoryta, pot doxo 
[Soxet 2], rs mpoonyopias agwhévres. It is not quite clear whether 
Philo is here playing with words after the manner of his master 
Plato, or whether he holds a pre-established harmony to exist among 
different languages by which similar sounds represent similar things, 
or whether lastly he seriously means that’ the name was directly 
derived from the Greek word dovos. The last supposition is the least 
probable ; but he certainly does not reject this derivation ‘as incor- 
rect’ (Ginsburg Lssenes p. 27), nor can wapuvupor oordrytos be ren- 
dered ‘from an incorrect derivation from the Greek homonym hosiotes’ 
(ib. p. 32), since the word zapwyupos never involves the notion of false 
etymology. The amount of truth which probably underlies Philo’s 
statement will be considered hereafter. Another Greek derivation 
is ioos, ‘companion, associate,’ suggested by Rapoport, Hrech Mullin 
p- 41. Several others again are suggested by Lowy, s. v. Essiier, e.g. 
éow from their esoteric doctrine, or atoa from their fatalism, All 
such may be rejected as instances of ingenious trifling, if imdeed 
they deserve to be called ingenious. 
(ii) From Secondly: derivations from proper names whether of persons or 
ees ce of places. Thus the word has been derived from Jesse the father 
places; of David (Epiphan. 1.c.), or from one ‘yw Jsai, the disciple of R. 
Joshua ben Perachia who migrated to Egypt in the time of Alexander 
Janneus (Liw in Ben Chananja I. p. 352). Again it has been 
referred to the town ssa (a doubtful reading in Joseph. Ant. xiii 
15. 3) beyond the Jordan. And other similar derivations have been 
suggested. 
(iii) From Thirdly: etymologies from the Hebrew or Aramaic, which do 
cet dl not supply the right consonants, or do not supply them in the right 
eee order. Under this head several must be rejected ; 
conso- “DN dsar ‘to bind,’ Adler Volkslehrer v1. p. 50, referred to by 
nants, —_ Ginsburg Essenes p. 29. 
"DM chasid ‘pious,’ which is represented by ’Acwdatos (1 Mace. 
ii. 42 (v. 1), vii. 13, 2 Mace. xiv. 6), and could not possibly assume 


THE ESSENES. 351 


the form ’Eaaaios or "Eoonvds. Yet this derivation appears in Josip- 
pon ben Gorion (iv. 6, 7, v. 24, pp. 274, 278, 451), who substitutes 
Chasidim in narratives where the Essenes are mentioned in the 
original of Josephus; and it has been adopted by many more recent 
writers. 

NAD s’chad ‘to bathe,’ from which with an Aleph prefixed we 
might get ‘NNDN as’chati ‘bathers’ (a word however which does not 
occur): Griitz Gesch. der Juden 11. pp. 82, 468. 

YS tsantiag ‘retired, modest,’ adopted by Frankel (Zettschri/t 
1846, p. 449, Monatsschrift 11. p. 32) after a suggestion by Low. 

To this category must be assigned those etymologies which con- such as 
tain a } as the third consonant of the root; since the comparison er 
of the parallel forms "Eocatos and “Ecoynves shows that in the latter make x 
word the v is only formative. On this ground we must reject: iar k 

‘DM chdasin ; see below under py. 

yn chotsen ‘a fold’ of a garment, and so supposed to signify the 
mepilwpa or ‘apron’, which was given to every neophyte among the 
Essenes (Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 5, 7): suggested by Jellinek Ben Cha- 
nanja IV. p. 374. 

py edshin ‘strong’: see Cohn in Frankel’s Monatsschrift vit. 

p. 271. This etymology is suggested to explain Epiphanius Haer. 
Pp. 40 todro b& TO yevos Tay ‘Ocanvav Epynvederar did THs exddcEws 
TOU ovopmatos oriBapoy yéevos (‘a sturdy race’). The name ‘Essene’ 
is so interpreted also in Makrisi (de Sacy, Chrestom. Arab. 1. p. 114, 
306); but, as he himself writes it with Zlif and not Ain, it is plain 
that he got this interpretation from some one else, probably from 
Epiphanius. The correct reading however in Epiphanius is Occaiwy, 
not ‘Ocoyvav; and it would therefore appear that this father or his 
informant derived the word from the Hebrew root yy rather than 
from the Aramaic jwy. The ‘Occato. would then be the oy, and this 
is so far a possible derivation, that the m does not enter into the root. 
Another word suggested to explain the etymology of Epiphanius is the 
Hebrew and Aramaic }'Dn chasin ‘powerful, strong’ (from jpn) ; but 
this is open to the same objections as } wy. 


When all such derivations are eliminated as untenable or impro- Other de- 
rivations 
consider- 


cals might be any of the gutturals &, n, n, Y; and the Greek g, as the ed: 


bable, considerable uncertainty still remains. The 1st and 3rd radi- 


2nd radical, might represent any one of several Shemitic sibilants, 


352 


(1) NYDN ‘a 
physician’; 


(2) SN 
‘a seer’; 


THE ESSENES. 


Thus we have the choice of the following etymologies, which have 
found more or less favour. 

(1) NDS ds@ ‘to heal,’ whence 'DN asyd, ‘a physician.’ 
The Essenes are supposed to be so called because Josephus states 
(B. J. ii. 8. 6) that they paid great attention to the qualities of herbs 
and minerals with a view to the healing of diseases (xpos Oepareiav 
maQav). This etymology is supported likewise by an appeal to the 
name Oeparevrai, which Philo gives to an allied sect in Egypt (de Vit. 
Cont. § 1, 1. p. 471). It seems highly improbable however, that the © 
ordinary name of the Essenes should have been derived from a 
pursuit which was merely secondary and incidental; while the sup- 
posed analogy of the Therapeutz rests on a wrong interpretation of 
the word. Philo indeed (1. c.), bent upon extracting from it as much 
moral significance as possible, says, Qepamevrat kal Oepamevtpides Kxa- 
AotvTat, Aror wap doov iatpukny émayyéAAovTat Kpeiooova THS KaTa 
moves (7 bev yap cupata Oeparever povov, éxeivy dé Kal Wuyds k.7.A.) 
wap ooov ek pvcews kal Tay tepdy vopwv eradevOnoav Oeparedew 
70 ov x.7.A.: but the latter meaning alone accords with the usage of 
the word; for Oepamevrjs, used absolutely, signifies ‘a worshipper, 
devotee,’ not ‘a physician, healer.’ This etymology of “Eocaios is 
ascribed, though wrongly, to Philo by Asaria de’ Rossi (Meor Enayim 
3, fol. 33 a) and has been very widely received. Among more recent 
writers, who have adopted or favoured it, are Bellermann (Ueber Essder 
u. Therapeuten p. 7), Gfrorer (Philo 11. p. 341), Dihne (Ersch u. Gruber, 
s. v.), Baur (Christl. Kirche der drei erst. Jahrh. p. 20), Herzfeld 
(Gesch. des Judenthums I. p. 371, 395, 397 8q.), Geiger (Urschrift 
p. 126), Derenbourg (L’ Histoire et la Géographie de la Palestine 
pp. 170, 175, notes), Keim (Jesus von Nazara 1. p. 284 sq.), and 
Hamburger (Real-Encyclopddie fiir Bibel u. Talmud, s. v.). -Several 
of these writers identify the Essenes with the Baithusians (}'p}n’2) 
of the Talmud, though in the Talmud the Baithusians are connected 
with the Sadducees. This identification was suggested by Asaria de’ 
Rossi (1. c. fol. 33 6), who interprets ‘ Baithusians’ as ‘ the school of the 
Essenes’ (8'D'S na): while subsequent writers, going a step further, 
have explained it ‘the school of the physicians’ (S‘D M3). 

(2) SIM chdzad ‘to see’, whence x'tn chazyad ‘a seer’, in re- 
ference to the prophetic powers which the Essenes claimed, as the 
result of ascetic contemplation: Joseph. B. J. i. 8. 12 eiot Sé ev adrois 








THE ESSENES. 3 


ea f 
eS) 


oi kal Ta péAdovTa TpoywwoKkew dricxvotvrat K.t-A, For instances of 
such Essene prophets see Ant. xi. 11. 2, xv. 10.5, B. J. i. 3. 5, ii. 7. 
3. Suidas, s.v. "Eooato, says: Oewpla ta moAAd tapapevovow, evOev 
kat “Eooato. xadovvtat, Todto SnAovvTos Tov ovdpatos, TovTéaTi, Jewpy- 
vuot. For this derivation, which was suggested by Baumgarten 
(see Bellermann p. 10) and is adopted by Hilgenfeld (Jiid. Apocal. 
p. 278), there is something to be said: but Nin is rather opay than 
dewpetv; and thus it must denote the result rather than the process, 
the vision which was the privilege of the few rather than the con- 
templation which was the duty of all. Indeed in a later paper 
(Zeitschr. X1. p. 346, 1868) Hilgenfeld expresses himself doubtfully 
about this derivation, feeling the difficulty of explaining the oo 
from the t. This is a real objection. In the transliteration of the 
Lx¥x the} is persistently represented by % and the y by c. The 
exceptions to this rule, where the manuscript authority is beyond 
question, are very few, and in every case they seem capable of ex- 
planation by peculiar circumstances, 

(3) Mwy easah ‘to do,’ so that “Eooato. would signify ‘the (3) ney 
doers, the observers of the law,’ thus referring to the strictness of ee 

Hssene practices: see Oppenheim in Frankel’s Monatsschrift vit. 
p. 272 sq. It has been suggested also that, as the Pharisees were 
especially designated the teachers, the Essenes were called the ‘doers. 
by a sort of antithesis : see an article in Jost’s Annalen 1839, p. 145. 
Thus the Talmudic phrase pwyn vox, interpreted ‘men of prac- 
tice, of good deeds,’ is supposed to refer to the Essenes (see Frankel’s 
Zeitschrift 11. p. 458, Monatsschrift 11. p. 70). In some passages indeed 
(see Surenhuis Mishna 111. p. 313) it may possibly mean ‘ workers of 
miracles’ (as €pyov Joh. v. 20, vil. 21, x. 25, etc.); but in this sense 
also it might be explained of the thaumaturgic powers claimed by the 
Essenes. (See below, p. 362.) On the use which has been made of a 
passage in the Aboth of R. Nathan c. 37, as supporting this deriva- 
| tion, I shall have to speak hereafter. Altogether this etymology has 
little or nothing to recommend it. 

I have reserved to the last the two derivations which seem to 
deserve most consideration. 

(4) as8asy chast (poms, ch’s2) Or pLasass chasyo, ‘pious,’ in (4) chasyo 
Syriac. This derivation, which is also given by de Sacy (Chrestom. pea Ke 
Arab. 1. p. 347), is adopted by Ewald (Gesch. des V. Isr. tv. p. 484, 

COL. 20 





(5) DNYN 
‘silent 


ones,’ 


THE ESSENES. 


ed. 3, 1864, VII. pp. 154, 477, ed. 2, 1859), who abandons in its fa- 
vour another etymology (jtn chazzan ‘watcher, worshipper’ = epa- 
meuvtys) Which he had suggested in an earlier edition of his fourth 
volume (p. 420). It is recommended by the fact that it resembles 
not only in sound, but in meaning, the Greek dcvos, of which it is a 
common rendering in the Peshito (Acts i. 27, xiii. 35, Tit. i. 8). 
Thus it explains the derivation given by Philo (see above, p. 350), 
and it also accounts for the tendency to write "Occatos for "Eocatos 
in Greek. Ewald moreover points out how an Essenizing Sibylline 
poem (Orac. Sib. iv; see above, p. 96) dwells on the Greek equiva- 
lents, etoeBys, edoeBin, etc. (vv. 26, 35, 42 8q., 148 8q., 162, 165 sq., 
178 sq., ed. Alexandre), as if they had a special value for the 
writer : see Gesch. VI. p. 154, Sibyll. Biicher p. 46. Lipsius (Schenkel’s 
Bibel-Lexicon, s, v.) also considers this the most probable etymology. 
(5) SNWM chasha (also pwn) Heb. ‘to be silent’; whence pyxwn 
chashshaim ‘the silent ones,’ who meditate on mysteries. Jost (Gesch. 
d. Judenth. 1. p. 207) believes that this was the derivation accepted 
by Josephus, since he elsewhere (Ant. ili. 7. 5, ili. 8. 9) writes out }wn, 
choshen ‘the high-priest’s breast-plate’ (Exod. xxviii. 15 sq.), éooyv or 
éoonvys in Greek, and explains it onpaiver tovro Kata tv “EAAnVev 
yAGrrav doyeioy (i.e. the ‘place of oracles’ or ‘of reason’: comp. Philo 
de Mon. ii. § 5, 11. p. 226, xadetrar Aoyetov érdpws, ered) Ta ev otpava 
mavta Adyows Kal avadoylas Sedyurovpyyrat x.7.A.), as it is translated 
in the txx. Even though modern critics should be right in connect- 


ing wn with the Arab. ,~.> ‘pulcher fuit, ornavit’ (see Gesen. Thes. 
ps 535, 8. v.), the other derivation may have prevailed in Josephus’ 
time. We may illustrate this derivation by Josephus’ description of 
the Essenes, B. J. ii. 8. 5 rots éwhev ws pvorypiov te ppixtov Wy TOV 
%Sov own Karadaiverae; and perhaps this will also explain the Greek 
equivalent Oewpytixot, which Suidas gives for “Eocaio.. The use of 
the Hebrew word o'xwn in Mishna Shekalim v. 6, though we need 
not suppose that the Essenes are there meant, will serve to show how 
it might be adopted as the name of the sect. On this word see Levy 
Ohalddisches Worterbuch p. 287. On the whole this seems the most 
probable etymology of any, though it has not found so much favour 
as the last. At all events the rules of transliteration are entirely 
satisfied, and this can hardly be said of the other derivations which 


come into competition with it. 





TT 
ORIGIN AND AFFINITIES OF THE ESSENES. 


HE ruling principle of the Restoration under Ezra was the isola- The prin- 
tion of the Jewish people from all influences of the surrounding oe aie 
nations. Only by the rigorous application of this principle was it Ttion. 
possible to guard the nationality of the Hebrews, and thus to preserve 
the sacred deposit of religious truth of which this nationality was the 
husk. Hence the strictest attention was paid to the Levitical ordi- 
nances, and more especially to those which aimed at ceremonial 
purity. The principle, which was thus distinctly asserted at the 
period of the national revival, gained force and concentration at a 
later date from the active antagonism to which the patriotic Jews 
were driven by the religious and political aggressions of the Syrian 
kings. During the Maccabean wars we read of a party or sect Rise of 
called the Chasidim or Asideans (Acidaior), the ‘pious’ or ‘devout,’ ee 
who zealous in their observance of the ceremonial law stoutly re- 
sisted any concession to the practices of Hellenism, and took their 
place in the van of the struggle with their national enemies, the 
Antiochene monarchs (1 Mace. ii. 42, vil. 13, 2 Mace. xiv. 6). But, 
though their names appear now for the first time, they are not men- 
tioned as a newly formed party; and it is probable that they had their 
origin at a much earlier date, 

The subsequent history of this tendency to exclusiveness and 
isolation is wrapt in the same obscurity. At a somewhat later date Phari- 
it is exhibited in the Pharisees and the Hssenes,; but whether these pee 
were historically connected with the Chasidim as divergent offshoots traced to 
of the original sect, or whether they represent independent develop- recisls: 
ments of the same principle, we are without the proper data for 
deciding. The principle itself appears in the name of the Pharisees, 

23—2 


Foreign 

elements 
in Esse- 
nism. 


Frankel’s 
theory 
well re- 
ceived, 


THE ESSENES. 


which, as denoting ‘separation,’ points to the avoidance of all foreign — 
and contaminating influences. On the other hand the meaning of 
the name Zssene is uncertain, for the attempt to derive it directly 
from Chasidim must be abandoned ; but the tendency of the sect is 
unmistakeable. If with the Pharisees ceremonial purity was a 
principal aim, with the Essenes it was an absorbing passion. It was 
enforced and guarded moreover by a special organization. While the 
Pharisees were a sect, the Essenes were an order, Like the Pytha- 
goreans in Magna Grecia and the Buddhists in India before them, 
like the Christian monks of the Egyptian and Syrian deserts after 
them, they were formed into a religious brotherhood, fenced about by 
minute and rigid rules, and carefully guarded from any contamination 
with the outer world. 

Thus the sect may have arisen in the heart of Judaism. The 
idea of ceremonial purity was essentially Judaic. But still, when we 
turn to the representations of Philo and Josephus, it is impossible to 
overlook other traits which betoken foreign affinities. Whatever the 
Essenes may have been in their origin, at the Christian era at least 
and in the Apostolic age they no longer represented the current type 
of religious thought and practice among the Jews. This foreign 
element has been derived by some from the Pythagoreans, by others 
from the Syrians or Persians or even from the farther East; but, 
whether Greek or Oriental, its existence has until lately been almost 
universally allowed. 

The investigations of Frankel, published first in 1846 in his 
Zeitschrift, and continued in 1853 in his Monatsschrift, have given 
a different direction to current opinion. Frankel maintains that 
Essenism was a purely indigenous growth, that it is only Pharisaism 
in an exaggerated form, and that it has nothing distinctive and owes 
nothing, or next to nothing, to foreign influences. To establish this 
point, he disparages the representations of Philo and Josephus as 
coloured to suit the tastes of their heathen readers, while in their 
place he brings forward as authorities a number of passages from tal- 
mudical and rabbinical writings, in which he discovers references to 
this sect. In this view he is followed implicitly by some later 
writers, and has largely influenced the opinions of others; while 
nearly all speak of his investigations as throwing great light on 
the subject. 


THE ESSENES. 


It is perhaps dangerous to dissent from a view which has found but 
so much favour; but nevertheless I am obliged to confess my belief ? tag 


357 


round- 
s and 


that, whatever value Frankel’s investigations may have as contribu- agin 
in 


tions to our knowledge of Jewish religious thought and practice, they 
throw little or no light on the Essenes specially ; and that the blind 
acceptance of his results by later writers has greatly obscured the 
distinctive features of this sect. I cannot but think that any one, 
who will investigate Frankel’s references and test his results step by 
step, will arrive at the conclusion to which I myself have been led, 
that his talmudical researches have left our knowledge of this sect 
where it was before, and that we must still refer to Josephus and 
Philo for any precise information respecting them. 


Frankel starts from the etymology of the name. He supposes His double 


that "Eooatos, "Eaonvos, represent two different Hebrew words, the 


former pn chdsid, the latter piyy tsandazg, both clothed in suit- name. 


able Greek dresses'. Wherever therefore either of these words 
occurs, there is, or there may be, a direct reference to the 
Essenes. 


derivation 


It is not too much to say that these etymologies are impossible ; Fatal ob- 


and this for several reasons. (1) The two words “Eovaios, “Eoor- j; 
vds, are plainly duplicate forms of the same Hebrew or Aramaic 
original, like Saywatos and Sapiynves (Epiphan. Haer. pp. 40, 47, 
127, and even Sauwirys p. 46), Nafwpatos and Nafapyros, Turratos 
and Trryvos (Steph. Byz. s. v., Hippol. Her. vi. 7), with which we 
may compare Boorpatos and Boortpyves, MeAraios and Medurnvos, and 
numberless other examples. (2) Again; when we consider either 
word singly, the derivation offered is attended with the most serious 
difficulties. There is no reason why in ‘Eooatos the d should have 
disappeared from chasid, while it is hardly possible to conceive that 
tsanuag, should have taken such an incongruous form as "Eoonvds. 
(3) And lastly ; the more important of the two words, chasid, had 
already a recognised Greek equivalent in ’AciSaios; and it seems 
highly improbable that a form so divergent as "Eacatos should have 
taken its place. 


eae to 


Indeed Frankel’s derivations are generally, if not universally, Depend- 


abandoned by later writers; and yet these same writers repeat his 


1 Zeitschrift p.449 ‘Fiir Essder liegt, nach einer Bemerkung des Herrn L. 
wie schon von anderen Seiten bemerkt Léw im Orient, das Hebr. y\)¥ nahe’; 
wurde, das Hebr. pn, fiir Essener, seoalsopp. 454,455; Monatsschriftp. 32 


ence of 
the theory 


358 


on the 
deriva- 
tion. 


The term 
chasid 
not ap- 
plied 
specially 
to the 
Hssenes. 


THE ESSENES. 


quotations and accept his results, as if the references were equally valid, 
though the name of the sect has disappeared. They seem to be 
satisfied with the stability of the edifice, even when the foundation 
is undermined. Thus for instance Gritz not only maintains after 
Frankel that the Essenes ‘were properly nothing more than station- 
ary or, more strictly speaking, logically consistent (consequente) 
Chasidim,’ and ‘that therefore they were not so far removed from the 
Pharisees that they can be regarded as a separate sect,’ and ‘accepts 
entirely these results’ which, as he says, ‘rest on critical inves- 
tigation’ (111. p. 463), but even boldly translates chasiduth ‘the 
Essene mode of life’ (ib. 84), though he himself gives a wholly 
different derivation of the word ‘ Essene,’ making it signify ‘ washers’ 
or ‘ baptists’ (see above, p. 351). And even those who do not go to 
this length of inconsistency, yet avail themselves freely of the 
passages where chasid occurs, and interpret it of the Essenes, while 
distinctly repudiating the etymology’. 

But, although ‘Eocatos or Eooyvos is not a Greek form of chasid, 
it might still happen that this word was applied to them as an 
epithet, though not asa proper name. Only in this case the refer- 
ence ought to be unmistakeable, before any conclusions are based 
upon it. But in fact, after going through all the passages, which 
Frankel gives, it is impossible to feel satisfied that in a single in- 
stance there is a direct allusion to the Essenes. Sometimes the word 
seems to refer to the old sect of the Chasidim or Asidceans, as for 
instance when Jose ben Joezer, who lived during the Maccabzan war, 
is called a chasid*. At all events this R. Jose is known to have 
been a married man, for he is stated to have disinherited his children 
(Baba Bathra 133 6); and therefore he cannot have belonged to the 
stricter order of Essenes. Sometimes it is employed quite generally 
to denote pious observers of the ceremonial law, as for instance 
when it is said that with the death of certain famous teachers the 
Chasidim ceased®. In this latter sense the expression D')}WN1n ODN, 
‘the ancient or primitive Chasidim’ (Monatsschr. pp. 31, 62), is perhaps 
used ; for these primitive Chasidim again are mentioned as having 


1 e.g. Keim (p. 286) and Derenbourg Frankel’s own account of this R. Jose 
(p. 166, 461 sq.), who both derive in an earlier volume, Monatsschr. 1. 
Essene from §'DN ‘a physician.’ Pp. 405 8q. 

2 Mishna Chagigah ii. 7; Zeitschr. % Zeitschr. p. 457, Monatsschr. p. 69 
p. 454, Monatsschr. pp. 33, 62. See  sq.3; see below, p. 362. 


THE ESSENES. 


wives and children’, and it appears also that they were scrupulously 
exact in bringing their sacrificial offerings’. Thus it is impossible to 
identify them with the Essenes, as described by Josephus and Philo. 
Even in those passages of which most has been made, the reference 
is more than doubtful. Thus great stress is laid on the saying of R. 
Joshua ben Chananiah in Mishna Softah iii. 4, ‘The foolish chasid and 
the clever villain (nyny yun) nD TDN), etc., are the ruin of the world.’ 
But the connexion points to a much more general meaning of chasid, 
and the rendering in Surenhuis, ‘ Homo pius qui insipiens, improbus 
qui astutus,’ gives the correct antithesis. So we might say that 
there is no one more mischievous than the wrong-headed conscientious 
man. It is true that the Gemaras illustrate the expression by ex- 
amples of those who allow an over-punctilious regard for external 
forms to stand in the way of deeds of mercy. And perhaps rightly. 
But there is no reference to any distinctive Essene practices in the 
illustrations given. Again; the saying in Mishna Purke Aboth v. 
10, ‘He who says Mine is thine and thine is thine is [a] chasid 
(on aby abun aby by), is quoted by several writers as though it 
referred to the Essene community of goods*, But in the first place 
the idea of community of goods would require, ‘ Mine is thine and 
thine is mine’: and in the second place, the whole context, and 
especially the clause which immediately follows (and which these 
writers do not give), ‘He who says Thine is mine and mine is 
mine is wicked (yw), show plainly that >\5n must be taken in its 
general sense ‘pious,’ and the whole expression implies not recipro- 
cal interchange but individual self-denial. 


1 Niddah 38 a; see Lowy s.v. Es- supposes, reciprocation or community 
ser. of goods, substituting ‘Thine is mine’ 


2 Mishna Kerithuth vi. 3, Nedarim 
10 a; see Monatsschr. p. 65. 

3 Thus Gratz (111 p. 81) speaking of 
the community of goods among the 
Essenes writes, ‘From thisview springs 
the proverb; Every Chassid says; Mine 
and thine belong to thee (not me)’ thus 
giving a turn to the expression which 
in its original connexion it does not 
at all justify. Of the existence of such 
a proverb I have found no traces. It 
certainly is not suggested in the pas- 
sage of Pirke Aboth. Later in the vo- 
lume (p. 467) Gratz tacitly alters the 
words to make them express, as he 


for ‘Thine is thine’ in the second 
clause; ‘The Chassid must have no 
property of his own, but must treat 
it as belonging to the Society (sy 
spon ‘Sy aby 3dw)? At least, as he 
gives no reference, I suppose that he 
refers to the same passage. This very 
expression ‘ mine is thine and thine is 
mine’ does indeed occur previously 
in the same section, but it is applied 
as a formula of disparagement to the 
gam haarets (see below p. 366), who 
expect to receive again as much as they 
give. In this loose way Gratz treats 
the whole subject. Keim (p. 2y4) 


359 


360 


Possible 
connexion 
of chasid 


THE ESSENES. 


It might indeed be urged, though this is not Frankel’s plea, that 
supposing the true etymology of the word “Eocatos, ‘Eaonvds, to be 


and chasyo the Syriac rSass, ratass, ch’sé, chasyo (a possible derivation), 


discussed. 


Usage is 
unfayvour- 
able to 
this view. 


Frankel’s 
second 
derivation 
tsanua & 
consider- 
ed. 


chasid might have been its Hebrew equivalent as being similar 
in sound and meaning, and perhaps ultimately connected in deriva- 
tion, the exactly corresponding triliteral root “pn (comp. pin) not 
being in use in Hebrew’. But before we accept this explanation 
we have a right to demand some evidence which, if not demonstra- 
tive, is at least circumstantial, that chasid is used of the Essenes : 
and this we have seen is not forthcoming. Moreover, if the Essenes 
had thus inherited the name of the Chasidim, we should have ex- 
pected that its old Greek equivalent “Acidator, which is still used 
later than the Maccabeean era, would also have gone with it; rather 
than that a new Greek word ‘Eocatos (or “Eaonvos) should have been 
invented to take its place. But indeed the Syriac Version of the 
Old Testament furnishes an argument against this convertibility of 
the Hebrew chasid and the Syriac chasyo, which must be regarded as 
almost decisive. The numerous passages in the Psalms, where the 
expressions ‘My chasidim,’ ‘His chasidim, occur (xxx. 5, xxxi. 24, 
xxv 28, liirr,, lexaxt2) Ikxxy, 0, xevil! ro, exvieins,) Cxaext-aay 
exlix. g: comp. xxxil. 6, cxlix. 1, 5), seem to have suggested the 
assumption of the name to the original Asideans. But in such 
passages 4'!DM is commonly, if not universally, rendered in the 
Peshito not by mSas9, radags, but by a wholly different word ms 
zadik, And again, in the Books of Maccabees the Syriac rendering 
for the name "Acudaio, Chasidim, is a word derived from another 
quite distinct root. These facts show that the Hebrew chasid and 
the Syriac chasyo were not practically equivalents, so that the one 
would suggest the other; and thus all presumption in favour of a 
connexion between ’Acidaias and “Eooatos is removed. 

Frankel’s other derivation yyy, tsaniiag, suggested as an equi- 
valent to “Eoonvos, has found no favour with later writers, and 
indeed is too far removed from the Greek form to be tenable. 
Nor do the passages quoted by him’ require or suggest any allusion 
quotes the passage correctly, butrefers by the later Jews because the Syrian 
it nevertheless to Essene communism. ssenes means exactly the same as 

1 This is Hitzig’s view (Geschichte ‘Hasidim.’” 


des Volkes Israel p. 427). He main- 2 Zeitschr. pp. 455, 4573; Monatsschr, 
tains that ‘‘they were called ‘Hasidim’ pp. 32. 


THE ESSENES. 361 


to this sect. Thus in Mishna Demat, vi. 6, we are told that the 
school of Hillel permits a certain license in a particular matter, but 
it is added, ‘The spy of the school of Hillel followed the pre- 
cept of the school of Shammai.’ Here, as Frankel himself confesses, 
the Jerusalem Talmud knows nothing about Essenes, but explains 
the word by “w5, ie. ‘upright, worthy’’; while elsewhere, as he 
allows’, it must have this general sense. Indeed the mention of the 
‘school of Hillel’ here seems to exclude the Essenes. In its com- 
prehensive meaning it will most naturally be taken also in the other 
passage quoted by Frankel, Kiddushin 71 a, where it is stated that 
the pronunciation of the sacred name, which formerly was known to 
all, is now only to be divulged to the pyy3y, i.e. the discreet, among 
the priests ; and in fact it occurs in reference to the communication 
of the same mystery in the immediate context also, where it could 
not possibly be treated as a proper name; 49) '¥M2 TOY) IWIY) PIV’, 
‘who is discreet and meek and has reached middle age,’ etc. 

Of other etymologies, which have been suggested, and through Other sup- 
which it might be supposed the Essenes are mentioned by name in ee. 
the Talmud, x'px, asya, ‘a physician,’ is the one which has found in the 

: : ae ee almud. 
most favour. For the reasons given above (p. 352) this derivation (1) Asyu 
seems highly improbable, and the passages quoted are quite insufi- ire 
cient to overcome the objections. Of these the strongest is in the 
Talm. Jerus. Yoma iii. 7, where we are told that a certain physician 
(ox) offered to communicate the sacred name to R. Pinchas the not sup- 
son of Chama, and the latter refused on the ground that he ate of ag 
the tithes—this being regarded as a disqualification, apparently sages _ 
because it was inconsistent with the highest degree of ceremonial sae 
purity*, The same story is told with some modifications in Midrash 
Qoheleth iii. 11*. Here Frankel, though himself (as we have seen) 
adopting a different derivation of the word ‘ Essene,’ yet supposes 
that this particular physician belonged to the sect, on the sole ground 
that ceremonial purity is represented as a qualification for the 
initiation into the mystery of the Sacred Name. Lowy (1.c.) denies 
that the allusion to the tithes is rightly interpreted: but even sup- 
posing it to be correct, the passage is quite an inadequate basis either 


1 Monatsschr. p. 32. Derenbourg p. 170 8q. 
2 Zeitschr. p. 455. 4 See Lowy Krit.-Talm. Lez. s. v. 


8 Frankel Monatsschr. p. 71: comp. Hssier, 


362 


(2) gasah 
‘to do.’ 


THE ESSENES. 


for Frankel’s conclusion that this particular physician was an Essene, 
or for the derivation of the word Essene which others maintain. Again, 
in the statement of Talm. Jerus. Kethuboth ii. 3, that correct manu- 
scripts were called books of px’, the word Asi is generally taken as 
a proper name. But even if this interpretation be false, there is abso- 
lutely nothing in the context which suggests any allusion to the 
Essenes*. In like manner the passage from Sanhedrin 99 b, where 
a physician is mentioned*, supports no such inference. Indeed, as 
this last passage relates to the family of the Ast, he obviously can 
have had no connexion with the celibate Essenes. 

Hitherto our search for the name in the Talmud has been unsuc- 
cessful. One possibility however still remains. The talmudical 
writers speak of certain mwy wix ‘men of deeds’; and if (as some 
suppose) the name Essene is derived from mwy have we not here the 
mention which we are seeking? Frankel rejects the etymology, 
but presses the identification*, The expression, he urges, is often 
used in connexion with chasidim. It signifies ‘miracle workers,’ 
and therefore aptly describes the supernatural powers supposed to be 
exercised by the Essenes®, Thus we are informed in Mishna Sotah ix. 
15, that ‘When R. Chaninah ben Dosa died, the men of deeds ceased ; 
when R, Jose Ketinta died, the chasidim ceased.’ In the Jerusalem 
Talmud however this mishna is read, ‘With the death of R. Cha- 
ninah ben Dosa and R. Jose Ketinta the chasidim ceased’ ; while the 
Gemara there explains R. Chaninah to have been one of the wo 
mwyy. Thus, Frankel concludes, ‘the identity of these with po pn 
becomes still more plain.’ Now it seems clear that this expression 
mwynd wos in some places cannot refer to miraculous powers, but 
must mean ‘men of practical goodness,’ as for instance in Succa/; 
5I a, 53 4; and being a general term expressive of moral excellence, 
it is naturally connected with chasidim, which is likewise a general 


1 Urged in favour of this derivation 
by Herzfeld 11. p. 398. 

2 The oath taken by the Essenes 
(Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 7) currnpycerp... 
Ta THs alpécews airav BiBNa can have 
nothing to do with accuracy in tran- 
scribing copies, as Herzfeld (11. pp. 398, 
407) seemstothink, The natural mean- 
ing of cuvrnpetv, ‘to keep safe or close’ 
and s0 ‘not to divulge’ (e.g, Polyb. 


Xxxi, 6. 5 ovx éfégawe Thy éauTis yvu- 
Mnv GG ouverjpe wap’ éavT7), is also 
the meaning suggested here by the 
context. 

3 The passage is adduced in support 
of this derivation by Derenbourg p. 
175. 

4 See Zeitschr. p. 438, Monatsschr. 
pp. 68—yo. 

5 See above, p. 353- 


THE ESSENES. 


Nor is there any reason why 
It is true that stories 


term expressive of piety and goodness. 
it should not always be taken in this sense. 
are told elsewhere of this R. Chaninah, which ascribe miraculous 
powers to him’, and hence there is a temptation to translate it ‘ won- 
der-worker,’ as applied to him. But the reason is quite insufficient. 
Moreover it must be observed that R. Chaninah’s wife is a promi- 
nent person in the legends of his miracles reported in Taanith 246; 
and thus we need hardly stop to discuss the possible meanings of 
MwWyDd ‘wo, since his claims to being considered an Essene are barred 
at the outset by this fact’. 

It has been asserted indeed by a recent author, that one very 
ancient Jewish writer distinctly adopts this derivation, and as dis- 
tinctly states that the Essenes were a class of Pharisees*, If this 
were the case, Frankel’s theory, though not his etymology, would 
receive a striking confirmation: and it is therefore important to 
enquire on what foundation the assertion rests. 


Dr Ginsburg’s authority for this statement is a passage from The au- 
hority 


the Aboth of Rabbi Nathan, c. 37, which, as he gives it, appears a this 


3 { 


3 


conclusive ; ‘There are eight kinds of Pharisees...and those Phari- d¢rivation 


sees who live in celibacy are Essenes.’ 
of the case? Jirst ; This book was certainly not written by its 
reputed author, the R. Nathan who was vice-president under the 
younger Gamaliel about A.D. 140. It may possibly have been 
founded on an earlier treatise by that famous teacher, though even 
this is very doubtful: but in its present form it is a comparatively 
modern work. On this point all or almost all recent writers 
on Hebrew literature are agreed*, Secondly ; Dr Ginsburg has taken 
the reading xwy ynDpinD, without even mentioning any alternative. 
Whether the words so read are capable of the meaning which he 
has assigned to them, may be highly questionable; but at all events 


this cannot have been the original reading, as the parallel passages, 


1 Taanith 24 b, Yoma 53 b; see Su- 
renhuis Mishna 111. p. 313. 

2 In this and similar cases it is un- 
necessary to consider whether the per- 
sons mentioned might have belonged 
to those looser disciples of Essenism, 
who married (see above, p. 85): be- 
cause the identification is meaningless 
unless the strict order were intended. 


3 Ginsburg in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia 
8.V., I. p. 829: comp. Essenes pp. 22, 
28. 
4 e.g. Geiger Zeitschrift f. Jiidische 
Theologie v1. p. 20 8q.; Zunz Gottes- 
dienstliche Vortraige p. 108 8q.: comp. 
Steinschneider Catal. Heb. Bibl. Bodl. 
col. 2032 sq. These two last references 
are given by Dr Ginsburg himself. 


traced to 
But what are the facts an error. 


& 
nn 
a4 


Are the 
Hissenes 


alluded to, 


THE ESSENES. 


Babl. Sotah fol. 22 6, Jerus. Sotah v. 5, Jerus. Berakhoth ix. 5, 
(quoted by Buxtorf and Levy, s.v. wp), distinctly prove. In 
Babl. Sotah l.c., the corresponding expression is FIwYyN) nan ND 
‘What is my duty, and I will do it,’ and the passage in Jerus. 
Berakhoth 1.c. is to the same effect. These parallels show that 
the reading powyN) ‘nin nD must be taken also in Aboth c. 37, 
so that the passage will be rendered, ‘The Pharisee who says, What 
is my duty, and I will do it.’ Thus the Essenes and celibacy dis- 
appear together. Lastly; Inasmuch as Dr Ginsburg himself takes a 
wholly different view of the name Essene, connecting it either with 
yyn ‘an apron,’ or with s%pn ‘ pious’,’ it is difficult to see how he could 
translate »;~wy ‘Essene’ (from xwy ‘to do’) in this passage, except 
on the supposition that R. Nathan was entirely ignorant of the 
orthography and derivation of the word Essene. Yet, if such igno- 
rance were conceivable in so ancient 4 writer, his authority on this 
question would be absolutely worthless. But indeed Dr Ginsburg 
would appear to have adopted this reference to R. Nathan, with the 
reading of the passage and the interpretation of the name, from 
some other writer*, At all events it is quite inconsistent with 
his own opinion as expressed previously. 


But, though we have not succeeded in finding any direct mention 
of this sect by name in the Talmud, and all the identifications 


thoughnot of the word Essene with diverse expressions occurring there 


named, in 


the Tal- 
mud? 


(1) The 
chaber 
or Agso- 
ciate. 


have failed us on examination, it might still happen that allusions 
to them were so frequent as to leave no doubt about the persons 
meant. Their organisation or their practices or their tenets might 
be precisely described, though their name was suppressed. Such 
allusions Frankel finds scattered up and down the Talmud in great 
profusion. 

(1) He sees a reference to the Essenes in the ~nj)2n chdbira or 
‘Society,’ which is mentioned several times in talmudical writers *. 
The chaber (nan) or ‘ Associate’ is, he supposes, a member of this 
brotherhood. He is obliged to confess that the word cannot always 
have this sense, but still he considers this to be a common desig- 


1 Essenes p. 30; comp. Kitto’s Cy- 1862, no. 33, p. 459, a reference pointed 
clopaedia, s. v. Essenes. out to me by a friend. 

2 It is given by Landsberg in the 3 Zeitschr. p. 450 8q-, Monatsschr. 
Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums pp. 31, 70 


THE ESSENES. 


nation of the Essenes. The chaber was bound to observe certain 
rules of ceremonial purity, and a period of probation was imposed 
upon him before he was admitted. With this fact Frankel connects 
the passage in Mishna Chagigah ii. 5, 6, where several degrees of cere- 
monial purity are specified. Having done this, he considers that he 
has the explanation of the statement in Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 7, 10), 
that the Essenes were divided into four different grades or orders 
according to the time of their continuance in the ascetic practices 
demanded by the sect. 


365 


But in the first place there is no reference direct or indirect A passage 


to the chaber, or indeed to any organisation of any kind, in the 
passage of Chagigah. 
purification as qualifying for the performance of certain Levitical 
rites in an ascending scale. There is no indication that these 
lustrations are more than temporary and immediate in their applica- 
tion ; and not the faintest hint is given of distinct orders of men, 
each separated from the other by formal barriers and each demand- 
ing a period of probation before admission from the order below, 
as was the case with the grades of the Essene brotherhood described 


by Josephus, 


1 As the notices in Josephus (B. J. 
ii. 8) relating to this point have been 
frequently misunderstood, it may be 
well once for all to explain his mean- 
ing. The grades of the Essene order 
are mentioned in two separate notices, 
apparently, though not really, discord- 
ant. (1) In § 10 he says that they are 
‘divided into four sections according 
to the duration of their discipline’ 
(Sinpnvrat KaT& xpovoy THs doxhoews 
eis polpas réccapas), adding that the 
older members are considered to be 
defiled by contact with the younger, 
i.e. each superior grade by contact 
with the inferior, So far his meaning 
is clear. (2) In § 8 he states that one 
who is anxious to become a member of 
the sect undergoes a year’s probation, 
submitting to discipline but ‘remain- 
ing outside.’ Then, ‘after he has given 
evidence of his perseverance (pera Thp 
Tihs Kapreplas émldeéw), his character 
is tested for two years more; and, if 
found worthy, he is accordingly ad- 


Moreover the orders in Josephus are four in number', 


mitted into the society.’ A comparison 
with the other passage shows that 
these two years comprise the period 
spent in the second and third grades, 
each extending over a year. After 
passing through these three stages in 
three successive years, he enters upon 
the fourth and highest grade, thus 
becoming a perfect member. 

It is stated by Dr Ginsburg (Essenes 
p- 12 8q., comp. Kitto’s Cyclopaedia 
8.v. p. 828) that the Essenes passed 
through eight stages ‘from the be- 
ginning of the noviciate to the achieve- 
ment of the highest spiritual state,’ 
this last stage qualifying them, like 
Elias, to be forerunners of the Mes- 
siah, But it is a pure hypothesis that 
the Talmudical notices thus combined 
have anything to do with the Essenes ; 
and, as I shall have occasion to point 
out afterwards, there is no ground for 
ascribing to this sect any Messianic 
expectations whatever, 


in Cha- 
gigah con- 
It simply contemplates different degrees of sidered. 


366 


Difference 
between 
the chaber 
and the 
Essene, 


THE ESSENES. 


while the degrees of ceremonial purity in Chagigah are five. Frankel 
indeed is inclined to maintain that only four degrees are intended 
in Chagigah, though this interpretation is opposed to the plain sense 
of the passage. But, even if he should be obliged to grant that the 
number of degrees is five’, he will not surrender the allusion to the 
Kssenes, but meets the difficulty by supposing (it is a pure hypothesis) 
that there was a fifth and highest degree of purity among the Essenes, 
to which very few attained, and which, as I understand him, is not 
mentioned by Josephus on this account, But enough has already 
been said to show, that this passage in Chagigah can have no con- 
nexion with the Essenes and gives no countenance to Frankel’s 
views. 

As this artificial combination has failed, we are compelled to 
fall back on the notices relating to the chaber, and to ask whether 
these suggest any connexion with the account of the Essenes in 
Josephus. And the facts oblige us to answer this question in the 
negative. Not only do they not suggest such a connexion, but they 
are wholly irreconcilable with the account in the Jewish historian. 
This association or confraternity (if indeed the term is applicable 
to an organisation so loose and so comprehensive) was maintained 
for the sake of securing a more accurate study and a better ob- 
servance of the ceremonial law. Two grades of purity are men- 
tioned in connexion with it, designated by different names and pre- 
senting some difficulties’, into which it is not necessary to enter here. 
A chaber, it would appear, was one who had entered upon the 
second or higher stage. For this a period of a year’s probation was 
necessary. The chaber enrolled himself in the presence of three 
others who were already members of the association. This ap- 
parently was all the formality necessary : and in the case of a teacher 
even this was dispensed with, for being presumably acquainted with 
the law of things clean and unclean he was regarded as ex officio 
a chaber. The chaber was bound to keep himself from ceremonial 
defilements, and was thus distinguished from the aam haarets 
or common people*; but he was under no external surveillance and 

1 Zeitschr. p. 452, note, sion; see e.g. Herzfeld 1. p. 390 8q., 
2 The entrance into the lower grade Frankel Monatsschr. p. 33 8q. 
was described as ‘taking O55’ or 8 The contempt with which a chaber 


‘wings.’ The meaning ofthis expression would look down upon the vulgar herd, 
has been the subject of much‘discus- the gam haarets, finds expression in 


THE ESSENES. 


decided for himself as to his own purity. Moreover he was, or 
might be a married man: for the doctors disputed whether the 
wives and children of an associate were not themselves to be 
regarded as associates’, In one passage, Sanhedrin 41 a, it is even 
assumed, as a matter of course, that a woman may be an associate 
(m73n). In another (Widdah 33 6)? there is mention of a Sadducee 
and even of a Samaritan as a chaber. An organisation so flexible as 
this has obviously only the most superficial resemblances with the 
rigid rules of the Essene order; and in many points it presents a 
direct contrast to the characteristic tenets of that sect. 


367 


(2) Having discussed Frankel’s hypothesis respecting the chaber, (2) The 


I need hardly follow his speculations on the Béné-hakkéneseth, 
noi3n 33, ‘sons of the congregation’ (Zabim iii. 2), in which ex- 
pression probably few would discover the reference, which he finds, 
to the lowest of the Essene orders*. 


Bene hak- 
keneseth. 


(3) But mention is also made of a ‘holy congregation’ or ‘as- (3) The 


sembly’ (xwp xdnp, musp may) ‘in Jerusalem’; and, following 


‘holy con- 
gregation 


Rapoport, Frankel sees in this expression also an allusion to the oy eee 


Essenes *, The grounds for this identification are, that in one pas- 
sage (Berakhoth 9 6) they are mentioned in connexion with prayer at 
daybreak, and in another (Midrash Qoheleth ix. 9) two persons are 
stated to belong to this ‘holy congregation,’ because they divided 
their day into three parts, devoting one-third to learning, another 
to prayer, and another to work. The first notice would suit the 
Essenes very well, though the practice mentioned was not so distinc- 
tively Essene as to afford any safe ground for this hypothesis. Of 
the second it should be observed, that no such division of the day is 
recorded of the Essenes, and indeed both Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 5) 
and Philo (Fragm. p. 633) describe them as working from morning 
till night with the single interruption of their mid-day meal*. But 


the language of the Pharisees, Joh. vii. 
49 0 8xdos obTOS O Mi) YiwwoKwY Tov 
vowov émaparol elow. Again in Acts 
iv. 13, Where the Apostles are de- 
scribed as li:@ra:, the expression is 
equivalent to gam haarets. See the 
passages quoted in Buxtorf, Lez. p. 
1626. 

1 All these particulars and others 
may be gathered from Bekhoroth 30}, 
Mishna Demai ii. 2. 3, Jerus. Demat 


ii. 3, v. 1, Tosifta Demai 2, Aboth R. 
Nathan ¢. 41. 

2 See Herzfeld 1. p. 386. 

3 Monatsschr. p. 35. 

* Zeitschr. pp. 458, 461, Monatsschr. 
PP- 32, 34+ 

5 It is added however in Midrash 
Qoheleth ix. g ‘Some say that they 
(the holy congregation) devoted the 
whole of the winter to studying the 
Scriptures and the summer to work.’ 


368 


not an 
Essene 
commu- 
nity. 


(4) The 
Vathikin. 


(5) The 
‘ primitive 
elders.’ 


(6) The 
‘morning 
bathers.’ 


THE ESSENES. 


in fact the identification is beset with other and more serious diffi- 
culties. For this ‘holy congregation’ at Jerusalem is mentioned long 
after the second destruction of the city under Hadrian’, when on 
Frankel’s own showing* the Essene society had in all probability 
ceased to exist. And again certain members of it, e.g. Jose ben 
Meshullam (Mishna Bekhoroth iii. 3, vi. 1), are represented as uttering 
precepts respecting animals fit for sacrifice, though we have it on 
the authority of Josephus and Philo that the Essenes avoided the 
temple sacrifices altogether. The probability therefore seems to be 
that this ‘holy congregation’ was an assemblage of devout Jews 
who were drawn to the neighbourhood of the sanctuary after the 
destruction of the nation, and whose practices were regarded with 
peculiar reverence by the later Jews’. 

(4) Neither can we with Frankel* discern any reference to the 
Essenes in those »p'n) Vathikin, ‘pious’ or ‘learned’ men (whatever 
may be the exact sense of the word), who are mentioned in Berakhoth 
9 6 as praying before sunrise; because the word itself seems quite 
general, and the practice, though enforced among the Essenes, as 
we know from Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 5), would be common to all 
devout and earnest Jews. If we are not justified in saying that 
these jpn) were not Essenes, we have no sufficient grounds for 
maintaining that they were. 

(5) Nor again can we find any such reference in the ppt 
Dwain or ‘primitive elders®.’ It may readily be granted that this 
term is used synonymously, or nearly so, with D’WNIn ODN 
‘the primitive chasidim’; but, as we failed to see anything more: 
than a general expression in the one, so we are naturally led to 
take the other in the same sense. The passages where the expression 
occurs (e.g. Shabbath 64 6) simply refer to the stricter observances 
of early times, and do not indicate any reference to a particular 
society or body of men. 

(6) Again Frankel finds another reference to this sect in the 
nonw sap To6blé-shachdrith, or ‘morning-bathers,’ mentioned in 
Tosifta Yadayim ec. 2°. The identity of these with the ypepoPa- 
mruotat of Greek writers seems highly probable. The latter how- 
ever, though they may have had some affinities with Essene practices 


1 Monatsschr. p. 32. 4 Monatsschr. p. 32. 
2 Ib. p: 70. 5 Monatsschr. pp. 32, 68. 
3 See Derenbourg p. 175. 6 Ib. p. 67. 


THE ESSENES. 


and tenets, are nevertheless distinguished from this sect wherever 
they are mentioned’, But the point to be observed is that, even 
though we should identify these Toble-shacharith with the Essenes, 
the passage in Tosifta Yadayim, so far from favouring, is distinctly 
adverse to Frankel’s view which regards the EHssenes as only a branch 
of Pharisees: for the two are here represented as in direct an- 
tagonism. The Toble-shacharith say, ‘ We grieve over you, Pharisees, 
because you pronounce the (sacred) Name in the morning without 
having bathed.’ The Pharisees retort, ‘We grieve over you, Toble- 
shacharith, because you pronounce the Name from this body in which 
is impurity.’ 


369 


(7) In connexion with the Toble-shacharith we may consider (7) The 


another name, Bandim (O°S)3), in which also Frankel discovers 
an allusion to the Hssenes*» In Mishna Mikvaoth ix. 6 the word 
is opposed to N23 bdr, ‘an ignorant or stupid person’; and this 
points to its proper meaning ‘the builders,’ ie. the edifiers or 
teachers, according to the common metaphor in Biblical language. 
The word is discussed in Shabdath 114 and explained to mean 
‘learned.’ But, because in AMikvaoth it is mentioned in connexion 
with ceremonial purity, and because in Josephus the Essenes are 
stated to have carried an ‘axe and shovel’ (B. J. ii. 8. 7, 9), and be- 
cause moreover the Jewish historian in another place (Vit. 2) mentions 
having spent some time with one Banus a dweller in the wilderness, 
who lived on vegetables and fruits and bathed often day and night 
for the sake of purity, and who is generally considered to have been 
an Essene; therefore Frankel holds these Banaim to have been Es- 
senes. This isa specimen of the misplaced ingenuity which distin- 
guishes Frankel’s learned speculations on the Essenes. Josephus does 


Banaim. 


not mention an ‘axe and shovel,’ but an axe only (§ 7 agwdapiov), Josephus 


which he afterwards defines more accurately as a spade (§ 9 7H eee 


oKanid:, ToLotrov yap éare TO Siddopevov vr avtrav agwidioy Tots veoov- 
oratots) and which, as he distinctly states, was given them for the 
purpose of burying impurities out of sight (comp. Deut. xxiii, 12—14), 
Thus it has no connexion whatever with any ‘building’ implement. 
And again, it is true that Banus has frequently been regarded as 
an Essene, but there is absolutely no ground for this supposition. 
On the contrary the narrative of Josephus in his Life seems to 
1 See below, p. 406. 2 Zeitschr. p. 455. 
COL, 24 


370 


Another 
derivaticn 
of Bana- 
im. 


Results of 
this inves- 
tigation. 


Philo and 
Josephus 
our main 
authori- 
ties. 


Frankel’s 
deprecia- 
tion of 
them is 
unreason- 
able, and 
explains 
nothing. 


THE ESSENES. 


exclude it, as I shall have occasion to show hereafter’. I should add 
that Sachs interprets Banaim ‘the bathers,’ regarding the explanation 
in Shabbath |.c. as a ‘later accommodation’.’ This seems to me very 
improbable ; but, if it were conceded, the Banaim would then ap- 
parently be connected not with the Hssenes, but with the Hemero- 
baptists. 

From the preceding investigation it will have appeared how 
little Frankel has succeeded in establishing his thesis that ‘the 
‘talmudical sources are acquainted with the Essenes and make 
mention of them constantly*’ We have seen not only that no 
instance of the name Essene has been produced, but that all those 
passages which are supposed to refer to them under other designa- 
tions, or to describe their practices or tenets, fail us on closer exa- 
mination. In no case can we feel sure that there is any direct 
reference to this sect, while in most cases such reference seems to be 
excluded by the language or the attendant circumstances*. Thus we are 
obliged to fall back upon the representations of Philo and Josephus. 
Their accounts are penned by eye-witnesses. They are direct and 
explicit, if not so precise or so full as we could have wished. The 
writers obviously consider that they are describing a distinct and 
exceptional phenomenon. And it would be a reversal of all esta- 
blished rules of historical criticism to desert the solid standing- 
ground of contemporary history for the artificial combinations and 
shadowy hypotheses which Frankel would substitute in its place. 

But here we are confronted with Frankel’s depreciation of these 
ancient writers, which has been echoed by several later critics. They 
were interested, it is argued, in making their accounts attractive 
to their heathen contemporaries, and they coloured them highly 
for this purpose’, We may readily allow that they would not be 
uninfluenced by such a motive, but the concession does not touch the 
main points at issue. This aim might have led Josephus, for example, 
to throw into bold relief the coincidences between the Essenes and 
Pythagoreans ; it might even have induced him to give a semi-pagan 


1 See below, p. 401. senes in our patristic (i.e. rabbinical) 

2 Beitrige u. p. 199. In this deri- literature,’ says Herzfeld truly (11. 
vation he is followed by Graetz (111. pp. 397), ‘has led to a splendid hypo 
p. 82, 468) and Derenbourg (p. 166). thesis-hunt (einer stattlichen Hypo- 

3 Monatsschr. p. 31. thesenjagd).’ 

4 «The attempt to point out the Es- 5 Monatsschr. p. 31. 


THE ESSENES. 371 


tinge to the Essene doctrine of the future state of the blessed (B. J. 
ii, 8. 11). But it entirely fails to explain those peculiarities of the 
sect which marked them off by a sharp line from orthodox Judaism, 
and which fully justify the term ‘separatists’ as applied to them 
by a recent writer. Jn three main features especially the portrait of 
the Essenes retains its distinctive character unaffected by this con- 
sideration. 

(i) How, for instance, could this principle of accommodation have (i) The 
led both Philo and Josephus to lay so much stress on their divergence ee 
from Judaic orthodoxy in the matter of sacrifices? Yet this is Ae leita 
perhaps the most crucial note of heresy which is recorded of the for, 
Essenes. What was the law to the orthodox Pharisee without the 
sacrifices, the temple-worship, the hierarchy? Yet the Essene 
declined to take any part in the sacrifices; he had priests of his own 
independently of the Levitical priesthood. On Frankel’s hypothesis 
that Essenism is merely an exaggeration of pure Pharisaism, no ex- 
planation of this abnormal phenomenon can be given. Frankel does 
indeed attempt to meet the case by some speculations respecting the 
red heifer’, which are so obviously inadequate that they have not 
been repeated by later writers and may safely be passed over in 
silence here. On this point indeed the language of Josephus is not The no- 
quite explicit. He says (Ané. xviii. 1. 5) that, though they send oui ES 
offerings (avajpara) to the temple, they perform no sacrifices, and and Philo 
he assigns as the reason their greater strictness as regards ceremonial rey 
purity (Scapopornte ayveiv as vouiouv), adding that ‘for this 
reason being excluded from the common sanctuary (reyeviopartos) 
they perform their sacrifices by themselves (é¢’ avrdv tas Ovatas 
émiteXovot). Frankel therefore supposes that their only reason for 
abstaining from the temple sacrifices was that according to their 
severe notions the temple itself was profaned and therefore unfit for 
sacrificial worship. But if so, why should it not vitiate the offerings, 
as well as the sacrifices, and make them also unlawful? And indeed, 
where Josephus is vague, Philo is explicit. Philo (i. p. 457) dis- 
tinctly states that the Essenes being more scrupulous than any in the 
worship of God (év rots padwora Yeparevtal @cod) do not sacrifice ani- 
mals (ov {da Karavovres), but hold it right to dedicate their own hearts 
as a worthy offering (aAN tepompemets tas éavrdy Siavolas KatacKevalev 

1 Monatsschr, 64. 
24—2 


372 


Their 
state- 
ments con- 
firmed by 
the doc- 
trine of 
Christian 
Essenes, 


The Cle- 
mentine 
Homilies 
justify 
this doc- 
trine by 


THE ESSENES. 


agvotvres). Thus the greater strictness, which Josephus ascribes to them, 
consists in the abstention from shedding blood, as a pollution in 
itself, And, when he speaks of their substituting private sacrifices, 
his own qualifications show that he does not mean the word to be 
taken literally. Their simple meals are their sacrifices; their refec- 
It should be 
added also that, though we once hear of an Essene apparently within 
the temple precincts (B. J. i. 3. 5, Ant. xiii. 11. 2)?, no mention is 
Thus it is clear that with the 
Essene it was the sacrifices which polluted the temple, and not the 


tory is their sanctuary ; their president is their priest’. 


ever made of one offering sacrifices. 
temple which polluted the sacrifices, And this view is further re- 
commended by the fact that it alone will explain the position of 
their descendants, the Christianized Essenes, who condemned the 
slaughter of victims on grounds very different from those alleged 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, not because they have been super- 
seded by the Atonement, but because they are im their very nature 
repulsive to God; not because they have ceased to be right, but 
because they never were right from the beginning. 

It may be said indeed, that such a view could not be main- 
tained without impugning the authority, or at least disputing the 
integrity, of the Old Testament writings. The sacrificial system is 
so bound up with the Mosaic law, that it can only be rejected 
by the most arbitrary excision. This violent process however, 
uncritical as it is, was very likely to have been adopted by the 
Essenes*. As a matter of fact, it did recommend itself to those 
Judaizing Christians who reproduced many of the Essene tenets, and 
who both theologically and historically may be regarded as the lineal 
descendants of this Judaic sect*, Thus in the Clementine Homilies, 
an Ebionite work which exhibits many Essene features, the chief 
spokesman St Peter is represented as laying great stress on the duty 


of distinguishing the true and the false elements in the current 


1 BJ. ii. 8. § Kaddmrep els dyidv rt 8.9, 10). The Christian Essenes how- 


Téuevos tmapaylvorrat 7d Semvnrjpiov: 
see also the passages quoted above p. 
89, note 3. 

2 See below, p. 379. 

3 Herzfeld (11. p. 403) is unable to 
reconcile any rejection of the Old Tes- 
tament Scriptures with the reverence 
paid to Moses by the Hssenes (B. d. ii. 


ever did combine both these incongru- 
ous tenets by the expedient which is 
explained in the text. Herzfeld him- 
self suggests that allegorical interpre- 
tation may have been employed to 
justify this abstention from the temple 
sacrifices. 
* See Galatians, p. 322 8q. 


THE ESSENES. 373 


a 


Scriptures (il. 38, 51, ill. 4,5, 10, 42, 47, 49, 5, comp. xviii. 19). The arbitrary 
saying traditionally ascribed to our Lord, ‘Show yourselves approved cena 
money-changers’ (yiveoOe tpareirar ddxtuor), is more than once quoted Scriptures. 
by the Apostle as enforcing this duty (ii. 51, ill, 50, xviii. 20). 

Among these false elements he places all those passages which repre- 

sent God as enjoining sacrifices (ili. 45, xvili. 19). It is plain, so he 

argues, that God did not desire sacrifices, for did He not kill those 

who lusted after the taste of flesh in the wilderness? and, if the 
slaughter of animals was thus displeasing to Him, how could He 

possibly have commanded victims to be offered to Himself (iii. 45) ? 

It is equally clear from other considerations that this was no part 

of God’s genuine law. For instance, Christ declared that He came 

to fulfil every tittle of the Law; yet Christ abolished sacrifices (iii. 

5D). 
a condemnation of this practice (iii. 56). The true prophet ‘hates 
sacrifices, bloodshed, libations’; he ‘extinguishes the fire of altars’ 
(iil. 26). 
produced by the reeking fumes of sacrifice (iii. 13). When in the 


And again, the saying ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice’ is 


The frenzy of the lying soothsayer is a mere intoxication 


immediate context of these denunciations we find it reckoned among 

the highest achievements of man ‘to know the names of angels, to 

drive away demons, to endeavour to heal diseases by charms (dap- 

paxias), and to find incantations (éraoidas) against venomous ser- 

pents (iii. 36)’; when again St Peter is made to condemn as false Essene 
those scriptures which speak of God swearing, and to set against them oe 
Christ’s command ‘Let your yea be yea’ (iii. 55); we feel how 
thoroughly this strange production of Ebionite Christianity is satu- 

rated with Essene ideas’. 


1 Epiphanius (Her. xviii. 1, p. 38)  marépwy yeyevfoGa. Here we have in 


again describes, as the account was 
landed down to him (ds 6 els juas €\9av 
meptéxer Novos), the tenets of a Jewish 
sect which he calls the Nasareans, airy 
8 od mapedéxeTo Ti mevtdrevxov, a\Ad 
wmorovyer wév TOV Mwiicéa, cal Bri édé- 
Earo vouobeciav émicrevev, ob tavrny Sé 
pnow, adr’ érépav, oOev Ta pev ravTa 
dvAatrovet Tay "Icvdalwy Iovdato bytes, 
Ovolav Se ovk €Ovoy ovre Eupixwry 
MeTELXOV, GAA AOEuTOv AY map avrois 
7d Kpe@y werarauBaver 7 Ovordgew av- 
Tous. épackov yap wemAdoPat Taira 
7a BtBrla cal udev rovrwv ird ray 


combination all the features which we 
are seeking. The cradle of this sect 
is placed by him in Gilead and Bashan 
and ‘the regions beyond the Jordan.’ 
He uses similar language also (xxx. 18, 
p. 142) in describing the Ebionites, 
whom he places in much the same 
localities (naming Moab also), and 
whose Essene features are unmistake- 
able: ore yap déxovrac Thy mevrdrevyov 
Mwicéws 8Anv adda Twa pyyara dro- 
Barrovow. drav 5 avrois eirys rept 
euyuxwv Bodcews x.7.\. These parallels 
will speak for themselves. 


374 THE ESSENES. 


(ii) The (ii) Nor again is Frankel successful in explaining the Essene 
eacatip prayers to the sun by rabbinical practices’, Following Rapoport, 
ee he supposes that Josephus and Philo refer to the beautiful hymn 
not be ex- Of praise for the creation of light and the return of day, which 
aa forms part of the morning-prayer of the Jews to the present 
time*, and which seems to be enjoined in the Mishna itself*; and 
this view has been adopted by many subsequent writers. But the 
language of Josephus is not satisfied by this explanation. For 
he says plainly (B. J. i. 8. 5) that they addressed prayers to the 
sun‘, and it is difficult to suppose that he has wantonly intro- 
duced a dash of paganism into his picture ; nor indeed was there 
any adequate motive for his doing so. Similarly Philo relates of the 
Therapeutes (Vit. Cont. 11, 11. p. 485), that they ‘stand with their 
faces and their whole body towards the East, and when they see that 
the sun is risen, holding out their hands to heaven they pray for 
a happy day (evyepiav) and for truth and for keen vision of reason 
(ofvwriav Noywpot).’ And here again it is impossible to overlook 
the confirmation which these accounts receive from the history of 
certain Christian heretics deriving their descent from this Judaic sect. 
The Samp- Epiphanius (Her, xix. 2, xx. 3, pp. 40 sq., 47) speaks of a sect 
ea ghee called the Sampseans or ‘Sun-worshippers’,’ as existing in his 
Beet, own time in Pera on the borders of Moab and on the shores of 
the Dead Sea. He describes them as a remnant of the Ossenes 
(i.e. Essenes), who have accepted a spurious form of Christianity 
and are neither Jews nor Christians. This debased Christianity 
which they adopted is embodied, he tells us, in the pretended 
revelation of the Book of Elchasai, and dates from the time of 
Trajan®. Elsewhere (xxx. 3, p. 127) he seems to use the terms 
Sampszean, Ossene, and Elchasaite as synonymous (mapa tots Zauwy- 
vols kat ‘Ocoyvois kai ’EXxecoatos Kadovpévors). Now we happen to 
know something of this book of Elchasai, not only from Epiphanius 
himself (xix. 1 sq., p. 40 sq., Xxx. 17, p. 141), but also from Hippo- 
as appears lytus (Her. ix. 13 sq.) who describes it at considerable length. From 
from 17° these accounts it appears that the principal feature in the book 


sacred 


aie? was the injunction of frequent bathings for the remission of sins 


1 Zeitschr. p. 458. 4 See above, p. 87, note 1. 
2 See Ginsburg Essenes p. 69 sq. 5 See above, p. 83. 
3 Berakhoth i. 4; see Derenbourg, 6 Galatians p. 3248q. See also be- 


p. 169 sq. low, Pp. 407. 


THE ESSENES. 375 


(Hipp. Her. ix. 13, 15 sq.). We are likewise told that it ‘anathema- 

tizes immolations and sacrifices (@vaias xat iepovpyias) as being alien 

to God and certainly not offered to God by tradition from (éx) the 

fathers and the law,’ while at the same time it ‘says that men ought 

to pray there at Jerusalem, where the altar was and the sacrifices 

(were offered), prohibiting the eating of flesh which exists among 

the Jews, and the rest (of their customs), and the altar and the fire, 

as being alien to God’ (Epiph. er. xix. 3, p. 42). Notwithstanding, 

we are informed that the sect retained the rite of circumcision, the Its Essene 
observance of the sabbath, and other practices of the Mosaic law elas 
(Hipp. Her. ix. 14; Epiph. Her. xix. 5, p. 43, comp. xxx. 17, 

p. 141). This inconsistency is explained by a further notice in 
Epiphanius (1. c.) that they treated the Scriptures in the same 

way as the Nasareans’; that is, they submitted them to a process of 
arbitrary excision, as recommended in the Clementine Homilies, 

and thus rejected as falsifications all statements which did not square 

with their own theory. Hippolytus also speaks of the Elchasaites 
as studying astrology and magic, and as practising charms and 
incantations on the sick and the demoniacs (§ 14). Moreover in two 
formularies, one of expiation, another of purification, which this 
father has extracted from the book, invocation is made to ‘the holy 
spirits and the angels of prayer’ (§ 15, comp. Epiph. Her. xix. 1). It 
should be added that the word Elchasai probably signifies the ‘ hidden 
power’*; while the book itself directed that its mysteries should be 
guarded as precious pearls, and should not be communicated to the 
world at large, but only to the faithful few (Hipp. Her. ix.15,17). It 
is hardly necessary to call attention to the number of Essene features 
which are here combined*. I would only remark that the value of 
the notice is not at all diminished, but rather enhanced, by the uncri- 
tical character of Epiphanius’ work ; for this very fact prevents us 
from ascribing the coincidences, which here reveal themselves, to this 


father’s own invention, 


1 See p. 372, note 3. 

2 Galatians p. 325, note 1. For 
another derivation see below, p. 407. 

3 Celibacy however is not one of 
these: comp. Epiphan, Her, xix. 1 (p. 
40) dmwex@dvera 5¢ TH mapdevia, piqe? 
dé rhy éyxpdreav, dvayxafe 5é€ yauor. 


In this respect they departed from the 
original principles of Essenism, alleg- 
ing, as it would appear, a special reve- 
lation (ws 690ev dmoxahv ews) in justifi- 
cation. In like manner marriage is 
commended in the Clementine Ho- 
milies, 


376 


Doubtful 
bearing of 
this Sun- 
worship. 


The 
practice 
repugnant 
to Jewish 
orthodoxy. 


THE ESSENES. 


In this heresy we have plainly the dregs of Essenism, which 
has only been corrupted from its earlier and nobler type by the 
admixture of a spurious Christianity. But how came the Essenes 
to be called Sampseans? What was the original meaning of this 
outward reverence which they paid to the sun? Did they regard it 
merely as the symbol of Divine illumination, just as Philo frequently 
treats it as a type of God, the centre of all light (e.g. de Somn. 
i, 13 sq., I. p. 631 sq.), and even calls the heavenly bodies ‘ visible 
and sensible gods’ (de Mund. Op. 7,1. p. 6)'? Or did they honour 
the light, as the pure ethereal element in contrast to gross terrestrial 
matter, according to a suggestion of a recent writer’? Whatever may 
have been the motive of this reverence, it is strangely repugnant to 
the spirit of orthodox Judaism. In Ezek. vill. 16 it is denounced as 
an abomination, that men shall turn towards the east and worship 


‘the sun; and accordingly in Berakhoth 7a a saying of R. Meir is 


(iii) The 
deprécia- 
tion of 
marriage 
not ac- 
counted 
for. 


reported to the effect that God is angry when the sun appears and the 
kings of the East and the West prostrate themselves before this 
luminary*. We cannot fail therefore to recognise the action of some 
foreign influence in this Essene practice—whether Greek or Syrian or 
Persian, it will be time to consider hereafter. 

(iii) On the subject of marriage again, talmudical and rabbinical 
notices contribute nothing towards elucidating the practices of this 
sect. Least of all do they point to any affinity between the Essenes 
and the Pharisees. The nearest resemblance, which Frankel can 
produce, to any approximation in this respect is an injunction in 
Mishna Kethuboth v. 8 respecting the duties of the husband in pro- 
viding for the wife in case of his separating from her, and this he 
ascribes to Essene influences*; but this mishna does not express any 
approval of such a separation. The direction seems to be framed 
entirely in the interests of the wife: nor can I see that it is at all 
inconsistent, as Frankel urges, with Mishna Kethuboth vii. 1 which 
allows her to claim a divorce under such circumstances. But how- 
ever this may be, Essene and Pharisaic opinion stand generally in the 
sharpest contrast to each other with respect to marriage. The talmudic 

1 The important place which the % Keim 1. p. 280. 
heavenly bodies held in the system 3 See Wiesner Schol. zum Babdyl. 
of Philo, who regarded them as ani- JTalm.1. pp. 18, 20. 


mated beings, may be seen from 4 Monatsschr. p. 37+ 
Gfrorer’s Philo 1. p. 349 8q- 


THE ESSENES. 


writings teem with passages implying not only the superior sanctity, 
but even the imperative duty, of marriage. The words ‘ Be fruitful 
and multiply’ (Gen. 1. 28) were regarded not merely as a promise, 
but as a command which was binding on all. It is a maxim of the 
Talmud that ‘Any Jew who has not a wife is no man’ (O75N 43s), 
Yebamoth 63a. The fact indeed is so patent, that any accumula- 
tion of examples would be superfluous, and I shall content myself 
with referring to Pesachim 113 a, 6, as fairly illustrating the doctrine 
of orthodox Judaism on this point’. As this question affects the 
whole framework not only of religious, but also of social life, the 
antagonism between the Essene and the Pharisee in a matter so 


vital could not be overlooked. 


3 


/ 


(iv) Nor again is it probable that the magical rites and incan- (iv) The 


Essene 


tations which are so prominent in the practice of the Essenes would, practice 


as a rule, have been received with any favour by the Pharisaic Jew. of oe 
In Mishna Pesachim iv. 9 (comp. Berakhoth 10 6) it is mentioned difficulty. 


with approval that Hezekiah put away a ‘book of healings’ ; where 
doubtless the author of the tradition had in view some volume of 
charms ascribed to Solomon, like those which apparently formed part 
of the esoteric literature of the Essenes*. In the same spirit in Mishna 
Sanhedrin xi. 1 R. Akiba shuts out from the hope of eternal life 
any ‘who read profane or foreign (i.e. perhaps, apocryphal) books, 
and who mutter over a wound’ the words of Exod. xv. 26. On 
this point of difference however no great stress can be laid. Though 
the nobler teachers among the orthodox Jews set themselves stead- 
fastly against the introduction of magic, they were unable to resist 
the inpouring tide of superstition. In the middle of the second 
century Justin Martyr alludes to exorcists and magicians among 
the Jews, as though they were neither few nor obscure’, Whether 
these were a remnant of Essene Judaism, or whether such practices 


1 Justin Martyr more than once 
taunts the Jewish rabbis with their 
reckless encouragement of polygamy. 
See Dial. 134, p. 363 D, Tots douvéras 
Kai Tuprots Sudackados tudy, otreves Kal 
héxpt viv Kal récoapas kal mévre éyew 
tuads yuvatkas Exacrov ovyxwpotou Kal 
éav e0uoppor tis lidv éxiOuuhoy adrijs 
K.T.A.y 70. Y4I, P. 371 A, B, Gzrocov 
mparrovow ol amd rod yévous Vw dv- 


Opwrot, kara wacay yiv ev0a dv émidny- 
Licwow 7) mpooreupbaow aydouevor dvo- 
Mart yamou yuvatkas K.T.r., With Otto's 
note on the first passage. 

2 See above, p. gr, note 2. 

3 Dial. 85, p. 311 C, 757 wévrot of e& 
Uudy émopxicral Tq Téxvy, Worep Kal Td 
€0vn, xpdevor éEopxifoucs kal Ovpiduace 
kal katadécuos xpwrrat, 


if 


378 THE ESSENES. 


had by this time spread throughout the whols body, it is impossible 
to say; but the fact of their existence prevents us from founding 
an argument on the use of magic, as an absolutely distinctive feature 
of Essenism. 

General Other divergences also have been enumerated’; but, as these do 

result. not for the most part involve any great principles, and refer only to 
practical details in which much fluctuation was possible, they cannot 
under any circumstances be taken as crucial tests, and I have not 
thought it worth while to discuss them. But the antagonisms on 
which I have dwelt will tell their own tale. In three respects more 
especially, in the avoidance of marriage, in the abstention from the 
temple sacrifices, and (if the view which I have adopted be correct) in 
the outward reverence paid to the sun, we have seen that there is 
an impassable gulf between the Hssenes and the Pharisees. No 
known influences within the sphere of Judaism proper will serve 
to account for the position of the Essenes in these respects; and 
we are obliged to look elsewhere for an explanation. 


Frankel It was shown above that the investigations of Frankel and others 

eee failed to discover in the talmudical writings a single reference to the 

blishing Essenes, which is at once direct and indisputable. It has now 

pe tnt, appeared that they have also failed (and this is the really important 
point) in showing that the ideas and practices generally considered 
characteristic of the Essenes are recognised and incorporated in these 
representative books of Jewish orthodoxy ; and thus the hypothesis 
that Essenism was merely a type, though an exaggerated type, of 
pure Judaism falls to the ground. 

Affinities Some affinities indeed have been made out by Frankel and by 

between those who have anticipated or followed him. But these are exactly 


Essenes 
and Phari- such as we might have expected. Two distinct features combine to 


Pah oe " make up the portrait of the Essene. The Judaic element is quite 
Ube as prominent in this sect as the non-Judaic. It could not be more 
strongly emphasized than in the description given by Josephus him- 
self. In everything therefore which relates to the strictly Judaic 
side of their tenets and practices, we should expect to discover not 
only affinities, but even close affinities, in talmudic and rabbinic 
authorities. And this is exactly what, as a matter of fact, we do 


1 Herzfeld, 11. p. 392 aq. 


THE ESSENES. 379 


find. The Essene rules respecting the observance of the sabbath, 
the rites of lustration, and the like, have often very exact parallels 
in the writings of more orthodox Judaism, But I have not thought 
it necessary to dwell on these coincidences, because they may well 
be taken for granted, and my immediate purpose did not require me 
to emphasize them. 

And again; it must be remembered that the separation between The di- 
Pharisee and Essene cannot always have been so great as it appears }eifre? 
in the Apostolic age. Both sects apparently arose out of one great Essenes 
movement, of which the motive was the avoidance of pollution’. The saielnd 
divergence therefore must have been gradual. At the same time, it etadual. 
does not seem a very profitable task to write a hypothetical history 
of the growth of Essenism, where the data are wanting; and I shall 
therefore abstain from the attempt. Frankel indeed has not been 
deterred by this difficulty ; but he has been obliged to assume his 
data by postulating that such and such a person, of whom notices 
are preserved, was an Essene, and thence inferring the character 
of Essenism at the period in question from his recorded sayings or 
doings. But without attempting any such reconstruction of history, 
we may fairly allow that there must have been a gradual develop- 
ment ; and consequently in the earlier stages of its growth we should 
not expect to find that sharp antagonism between the two sects, which 
the principles of the Essenes when fully matured would involve. 

If therefore it should be shown that the talmudical and rabbinical Hence the 
writings here and there preserve with approval the sayings of certain 5; ripen "y 
Essenes, this fact would present no difficulty. At present however no ou 
decisive example has been produced ; and the discoveries of Jellinek cords of 
for instance*, who traces the influence of this sect in almost every cme 
page of Pirke Aboth, can only be regarded as another illustration of 

the extravagance with which the whole subject has been treated by 

a large section of modern Jewish writers. More to the point is a 

notice of an earlier Essene preserved in Josephus himself. We learn 

from this historian that one Judas, a member of the sect, who had 
prophesied the death of Antigonus, saw this prince ‘ passing by through 

the temple’, when his prophecy was on the point of fulfilment 


1 See above, p. 355 sq. In the parallel narrative, Ant. xii. 
2 Orient 1849, pp. 489, 537, 553- 11. 2, the expression is mapidvra rd 
* B. J. i. 3. 5 wapidvra did Tod lepod. _lepdv, which does not imply so much; 


380 


The appro- 
bation of 
Philo and 
Josephus 
is no evi- 
dence of 
orthodoxy. 


What was 

the foreign 
element in 
Essenism ? 


Theory of 
Neopytha- 
gorean in- 
fluence. 


THE ESSENES. 


(about B.c. 110). At this moment Judas is represented as sitting 
in the midst of his disciples, instructing them in the science of pre- 
diction. The expression quoted would seem to imply that he was 
actually teaching within the temple area. Thus he would appear 
not only as mixing in the ordinary life of the Jews, but also as 
frequenting the national sanctuary. But even supposing this to be 
the right explanation of the passage, it will not present any serious 
difficulty. Even at a later date, when (as we may suppose) the 
principles of the sect had stiffened, the scruples of the Essene were 
directed, if I have rightly interpreted the account of Josephus, rather 
against the sacrifices than against the locality’, The temple itself, 
independently of its accompaniments, would not suggest any offence 
to his conscience. 

Nor again, is it any obstacle to the view which is here maintained, 
that the Essenes are regarded with so much sympathy by Philo and 
Josephus themselves. Even though the purity of Judaism might 
have been somewhat sullied in this sect by the admixture of foreign 
elements, this fact would attract rather than repel an eclectic like 
Philo, and a Jatitudinarian like Josephus, The former, as an Alexan- 
drian, absorbed into his system many and diverse elements of heathen 
philosophy, Platonic, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The latter, though 
professedly a Pharisee, lost no opportunity of ingratiating himself 
with his heathen conquerors, and would not be unwilling to gratify 
their curiosity respecting a society with whose fame, as we infer from 
the notice of Pliny, they were already acquainted. 


But if Essenism owed the features which distinguished it from 
Pharisaic Judaism to an alien admixture, whence were these foreign 
influences derived? From the philosophers of Greece or from the 
religious mystics of the East? On this point recent writers are 
divided. 

Those who trace the distinctive characteristics of the sect to 
Greece, regard it is an offshoot of the Neopythagorean School grafted 
on the stem of Judaism. This solution is suggested by the state- 
ment of Josephus, that ‘they practise the mode of life which among 


but the less precise notice must be that Judas himself was within the 
interpreted by the more precise. Even temple area. 
then however it is not directly stated See above, pp. 89, 371 Sq- 


THE ESSENES. 381 


the Greeks was introduced (xaradederynévy) by Pythagoras’.’ It is 
thought to be confirmed by the strong resemblances which as a 
matter of fact are found to exist between the institutions and prac- 
tices of the two. 

This theory, which is maintained also by other writers, as for ote 
instance by Baur and Herzfeld, has found its ablest and most per- theory by 
sistent advocate in Zeller, who draws out the parallels with great 4eller. 
force and precision. ‘The Essenes,’ he writes, ‘like the Pythagoreans, 
desire to attain a higher sanctity by an ascetic life; and the absten- 
tions, which they impose on themselves for this end, are the same 
with both. They reject animal food and bloody sacrifices; they 
avoid wine, warm baths, and oil for anointing ; they set a high value 
on celibate life: or, so far as they allow marriage, they require that 
it be restricted to the one object of procreating children, Both wear 
only white garments and consider linen purer than woel. Washings 
and purifications are prescribed by both, though for the Essenes they 
have a yet higher significance as religious acts. Both prohibit oaths 
and (what is more) on the same grounds. Both find their social 
ideal in those institutions, which indeed the Essenes alone set them- 
selves to realise—in a corporate life with entire community of goods, 
in sharply defined orders of rank, in the unconditional submission 
of all the members to their superiors, in a society carefully barred 
from without, into which new members are received only after a 
severe probation of several years, and from which the unworthy are 
inexorably excluded. Both require a strict initiation, both desire 
to maintain a traditional doctrine inviolable; both pay the highest 
respect to the men from whom it was derived, as instruments of 
the deity: yet both also love figurative clothing for their doctrines, 
and treat the old traditions as symbols of deeper truths, which they 
must extract from them by means of allegorical explanation. In 
order to prove the later form of teaching original, newly-composed 
writings were unhesitatingly forged by the one as by the other, 
and fathered upon illustrious names of the past. Both parties pay 
honour to divine powers in the elements, both invoke the rising 
sun, both seek to withdraw everything unclean from his sight, and 
with this view give special directions, in which they agree as well 
with each other as with older Greek superstition, in a remarkable 


RU Ant. XV. ‘30:4: 


382 THE ESSENES. 


way. For both the belief in intermediate beings between God and 
the world has an importance which is higher in proportion as their 
own conception of God is purer; both appear not to have disdained 
magic; yet both regard the gift of prophecy as the highest fruit of 
wisdom and piety, which they pique themselves on possessing in 
their most distinguished members. Finally, both agree (along with 
the dualistic character of their whole conception of the world...) in 
their tenets respecting the origin of the soul, its relation to the body, 
and the life after death’...’ 
Absence of This array of coincidences is formidable, and thus skilfully 
sonar marshalled might appear at first sight invincible. But a closer 
rean fea- examination detracts from its value. In the first place the two 
turesinthe ,... .. mie ; : 
Essenes, distinctive characteristics of the Pythagorean philosophy are wanting 
to the Essenes. The Jewish sect did not believe in the trans- 
migration of souls; and the doctrine of numbers, at least so far as 
our information goes, had no place in their system. Yet these con- 
stitute the very essence of the Pythagorean teaching. In the next 
place several of the coincidences are more apparent than real. Thus 
The coin- for instance the demons who in the Pythagorean system held an 
Beene °8 intermediate place between the Supreme God and man, and were the 
some cases result of a compromise between polytheism and philosophy, have no 
only ap- c 
parent, near relation to the angelology of the Essenes, which arose out of a 
wholly different motive. Nor again can we find distinct traces among 
the Pythagoreans of any such reverence for the sun as is ascribed to 
the Essenes, the only notice which is adduced haying no prominence 
whatever in its own context, and referring to a rule which would 
be dictated by natural decency and certainly was not peculiar to the 
Pythagoreans*, When these imperfect and (for the purpose) value- 
less resemblances have been subtracted, the only basis on which the 
theory of a direct affiliation can rest is withdrawn, All the re- 
maining coincidences are unimportant. Thus the respect paid to 
founders is not confined to any one sect or any one age. The 
reverence of the Essenes for Moses, and the reverence of the 


1 Zeller Philosophie der Griechen Life of Apollonius by Philostratus (e.g. 
Th. 11. Abth. 2, p. 281. vi. 10) considerable stress is laid on 

2 Diog. Laert. viii. 17; see Zeller the worship of the sun (Zeller 1. ¢. p, 
l. c. p. 282, note 5. The precept in 137, note 6); but the syncretism of 
question occurs among a number of this late work detracts from its value as 
insignificant details, and has no spe- representing Pythagorean doctrine. 
cial prominence given to it, In the 


THE ESSENES. 383 


Pythagoreans for Pythagoras, are indications of a common humanity, 

but not of a common philosophy. And again the forgery of suppo- 

sititious documents is unhappily not the badge of any one school. 

The Solomonian books of the Essenes, so far as we can judge from 

the extant notices, were about as unlike the tracts ascribed to 

Pythagoras and his disciples by the Neopythagoreans as two such 

forgeries could well be. All or nearly all that remains in common 

to the Greek school and the Jewish sect after these deductions is 

a certain similarity in the type of life. But granted that two bodies and in 
others do 

of men each held an esoteric teaching of their own, they would notsuggest 

secure it independently in a similar way, by a recognised process of pe 

initiation, by a solemn form of oath, by a rigid distinction of orders. connexion, 

Granted also, that they both maintained the excellence of an ascetic 

life, their asceticism would naturally take the same form ; they would 

avoid wine and flesh ; they would abstain from anointing themselves 

they would depreciate, and perhaps altogether prohibit, 

marriage, Unless therefore the historical conditions are themselves 

favourable to a direct and immediate connexion between the Pytha- 

goreans and the Essenes, this theory of affiliation has little to 

recommend it. 

And a closer examination must pronounce them to be most Twofold 
unfavourable. Chronology and geography alike present serious o ee 
obstacles to any solution which derives the peculiarities of the theory. 
Essenes from the Pythagoreans. 

(i) The priority of time, if it can be pleaded on either side, must (i) Chro- 
be urged in favour of the Essenes. The Pythagoreans as a philo- poe 
sophical school entirely disappear from history before the middle of adverse. 
the fourth century before Christ. The last Pythagoreans were 
scholars of Philolaus and Eurytus, the contemporaries of Socrates and 
Plato’. For nearly two centuries after their extinction we hear 
nothing of them. Here and there persons like Diodorus of Aspendus Disappear- 
are satirised by the Attic poets of the middle comedy as ‘pytha- oes 
gorizers,’ in other words, as total abstainers and vegetarians’; but 8°reans. 


2 Athen. iv. p. 161, Diog. Laert. 
See the index to Meineke 


with oil; 


1 Zeller 1. c. p. 68 (comp. 1. p. 242). 
While disputing Zeller’s position, I viii. 37. 


have freely made use of his references. 
It is impossible not to admire the 
mastery of detail and clearness of ex- 
position in this work, even when the 
conclusions seem questionable. 


Fragm. Com. 8. vv. mv@ayopixds, etc. 
The words commonly used by these 
satirists are rudayopifev, muPayopiorys, 
muvaryoptcuos. The persons so satirised 
were probably in many cases not more 


384 THE ESSENES. 


the philosophy had wholly died or was fast dying out. This is the 
universal testimony of ancient writers. It is not till the first century 
before Christ, that we meet with any distinct traces of a revival. 
In Alexander Polyhistor', a younger contemporary of Sulla, for the 
first time we find references to certain writings, which wonld seem 
to have emanated from this incipient Neopythagoreanism, rather than 
from the elder school of Pythagoreans. And a little later Cicero 
commends his friend Nigidius Figulus as one specially raised up to 
revive the extinct philosophy’. But so slow or so cheguered was 
its progress, that a whole century after Seneca can still speak of the 


Priority of school as practically defunct*®, Yet long before this the Essenes 
assenism 
to Neopy- 


thagorean- system of doctrine and a definite rule of life. We have seen that 
ism. 


formed a compact, well-organized, numerous society with a peculiar 


Pliny the elder speaks of this celibate society as having existed 
‘through thousands of ages*.? This is a gross exaggeration, but it 
must at least be taken to imply that in Pliny’s time the origin of the 
Essenes was lost in the obscurity of the past, or at least seemed so to 
those who had not access to special sources of information. If, as 
I have given reasons for supposing*, Pliny’s authority in this passage 
is the same Alexander Polyhistor to whom I have just referred, 
and if this particular statement, however exaggerated in expression, 
is derived from him, the fact becomes still more significant. But 
on any showing the priority in time is distinctly in favour of the 
Essenes as against the Neopythagoreans, 

The Es- And accordingly we find that what is only a tendency in the 

sene tenets Neonythagoreans is with the Essenes an avowed principle and a 


developed 

more than definite rule of life. Such for instance is the case with celibacy, of 

the Neopy- 

thagorean. W 
Essenes per seculorum miilia, and which is a chief corner-stone of 


hich Pliny says that it has existed as an institution among the 


Pythagoreans than modern teetotallers torem non invenit.’ 


are Rechabites. 4 N.H.v.15. The passage is quoted 
1 Diog. Laert. viii. 24.8q.; see Zeller abovep.85,note 3. The point of time, 
l.c. p. 74—78. at which Josephus thinks it necessary 


2 Cic. Tim. 1 ‘sic judico, post illos to insert an account of the Essenes as 
nobiles Pythagoreos quorum disci- already flourishing (Ant. xiii. 5. 9), is 
plina extincta est quodammodo, cum prior to the revival of the Neopytha- 
aliquot seecula in Italia Siciliaque vi- gorean school. How much earlier the 
guisset, hunc exstitisse qui illam reno- Jewish sect arose, we are without data 
varet.’ for determining. 

3 Sen. N. Q. vii. 32 ‘Pythagorica 5 See p. 83, note r. 
ila invidiosa turbm schola precep- 


THE ESSENES. 


their practical system. The Pythagorean notices (whether truly or not, 
it is unimportant for my purpose to enquire) speak of Pythagoras as 
having a wife and a daughter’. Only at a late date do we find the 
attempt to represent their founder in another light ; and if virginity 
is ascribed to Apollonius of Tyana, the great Pythagorean of the first 
Christian century, in the fictitious biography of Philostratus’, this 
representation is plainly due to the general plan of the novelist, whose 
hero is perhaps intended to rival the Founder of Christianity, and 
whose work is saturated with Christian ideas. In fact virginity can 
never be said to have been a Pythagorean principle, though it may 
have been an exalted ideal of some not very early acherents of the 
school. And the same remark applies to other resemblances between 
the Essene and Neopythagorean teaching. The clearness of con- 
ception and the definiteness of practice are in almost every instance 
on the side of the Essenes; so that, looking at the comparative 
chronology of the two, it will appear almost inconceivable that they 
can have derived their principles from the Neopythagoreans, 

(ii) But the geographical difficulty also, which this theory of 
affiliation involves, must be added to the chronological. The home 
of the Essene sect is allowed on all hands to have been on the 
eastern borders of Palestine, the shores of the Dead Sea, a region 
least of all exposed to the influences of Greek philosophy. It is 
true that we find near Alexandria a closely allied school of Jewish 
recluses, the Therapeutes; and, as Alexandria may have been the 
home of Neopythagoreanism, a possible link of connexion is here 
disclosed. But, as Zeller himself has pointed out, it is not among 
the Therapeutes, but among the Essenes, that the principles in 
question appear fully developed and consistently carried out*; and 
therefore, if there be a relation of paternity between Essene and 
Therapeute, the latter must be derived from the former and not 
conversely. How then can we suppose this influence of Neopytha- 
goreanism brought to bear on a Jewish community in the south- 
eastern border of Palestine? Zeller’s answer is as follows*, Judea 
was for more than a hundred and fifty years before the Maccabean 
period under the sovereignty first of the Egyptian and then of the 


1 Diog. Laert. viii. 42. had been differently represented by 
2 Vit. Apol. i. 15 sq. At the same _ others. 

time Philostratus informs us that the 3 l.c. p. 288 sq. 

conduct of his hero in this respect 41. ¢. p. 290 sq. 


COL. 25 


385 


(ii) Geo- 
graphical 
difficulties 
in the 
theory. 


386 


The fo- 
reign ele- 
ment of 
Hssenism 
to be 
sought in 
the Hast, 


to which 
also Py- 
thago- 
reanism 
may have 
been in- 
debted. 


THE ESSENES. / 


Syrian Greeks. We know that at this time Hellenizing influences 
did infuse themselves largely into Judaism: and what more natural 
than that among these the Pythagorean philosophy and discipline 
should have recommended itself to a section of the Jewish people? 
It may be said in reply, that at all events the special locality of the 
Essenes is the least favourable to such a solution: but, without 
pressing this fact, Zeller’s hypothesis is open to two serious objections 
which combined seem fatal to it, unsupported as it is by any 
historical notice. First, this influence of Pythagoreanism is assumed 
to have taken place at the very time when the Pythagorean school 
was practically extinct: and secondly, it is supposed to have acted 
upon that very section of the Jewish community, which was the 
most vigorous advocate of national exclusiveness and the most averse 
to Hellenizing influences. 

Tt is not therefore to Greek but to Oriental influences that con- 
siderations of time and place, as well as of internal character, lead 
us to look for an explanation of the alien elements in Essene Judaism. 
And have we not here also the account of any real coincidences which 
may exist between Essenism and Neopythagoreanism? We should 
perhaps be hardly more justified in tracing Neopythagoreanism 
directly to Essenism than conversely (though, if we had no other 
alternative, this would appear to be the more probable solution 
of the two): but were not both alike due to substantially the same 
influences acting in different degrees? I think it will hardly be denied 
that the characteristic features of Pythagoreanism, and especially of 
Neopythagoreanism, which distinguish it from other schools of Greek 
philosophy, are much more Oriental in type, than Hellenic, The 
asceticism, the magic, the mysticism, of the sect all point in the 
same direction, And history moreover contains indications that 
such was the case, There seems to be sufficient ground for the 
statement that Pythagoras himself was indebted to intercourse with 
the Egyptians, if not with more strictly Oriental nations, for some 
leading ideas of his system. But, however this may be, the fact 
that in the legendary accounts, which the Neopythagoreans invented 
to do honour to the founder of the school, he is represented as taking 
lessons from the Chaldeans, Persians, Brahmins, and others, may be 
taken as an evidence that their own philosophy at all events was 
partially derived from eastern sources’. 


1 See the references in Zeller 1. p. 218 sq.; comp. 111, 2, p. 67. 


THE ESSENES. 387 


But, if the alien elements of Essenism were borrowed not so 
much from Greek philosophy as from Oriental mysticism, to what 
nation or what religion was it chiefly indebted? To this question it 
is difficult, with our very imperfect knowledge of the East at the 


Yet there is one system Resem- 
blances to 
Parsism. 


Christian era, to reply with any confidence. 
to which we naturally look, as furnishing the most probable answer. 
The Medo-Persian religion supplies just those elements which dis- 
tinguish the tenets and practices of the Essenes from the normal 


(1) First; we have here a very definite form of (i) Dual- 
ism, 


type of Judaism. 
dualism, which exercised the greatest influence on subsequent Gnostic 
sects, and of which Manicheism, the most matured development of 
dualistic doctrine in connexion with Christianity, was the ultimate 
fruit. 
of the Zend-Avesta in its unadulterated form, yet long before the 


For though dualism may not represent the oldest theology 


era of which we are speaking it had become the fundamental prin- 


ciple of the Persian religion. (2) Again; the Zoroastrian symbolism (ii) Sun- 


of light, and consequent worship of the sun as the fountain of light, worship. 
will explain those anomalous notices of the Essenes in which they are 


(3) Moreover ; (iii) Angel- 
1 olatry. 


represented as paying reverence to this luminary’. 
the ‘worship of angels’ in the Essene system has a striking paralle 
in the invocations of spirits, which form a very prominent feature 
in the ritual of the Zend-Avesta. 
is illustrated, and not improbably was suggested, by the doctrine of 


And altogether their angelology 


intermediate beings concerned in the government of nature and of 
man, such as the Amshaspands, which is an integral part of the 
Zoroastrian system*. (4) And once more; the magic, which was so (iv) Magic. 
attractive to the Essene, may have received its impulse from the 
priestly caste of Persia, to whose world-wide fame this form of super- 


(5) If to these parallels I venture (vy) Striv- 
ing after 
purity. 


stition is indebted for its name. 
also to add the intense striving after purity, which is the noblest 
feature in the Persian religion, I do so, not because the Essenes 


1 Keim (Geschichte Jesu von Nazara 
I, p. 303) refers to Tac. Hist. ili. 24 
‘Undique clamor; et orientem solem 
(ita in Syria mos est) tertiani salu- 
tavere,’ as illustrating this Essene 
practice. The commentators on Ta- 
citus quote a similar notice of the 
Parthians in Herodian iv. 15 dua dé 
HrLw dvlaoxovre épdyn AprdBaves civ 


heylor@ wARGE oTparod' domacdmevoe 
dé Tov WALOv, ws os adrors, ol BdpBapor 
K.Ts\. 

2 See e.g. Vendidad Farg. xix; and 
the liturgical portions of the book are 
largely taken up with invocations of 
these intermediate beings. Some ex- 
tracts are given in Davies’ Colossians 
p. 146 sq. 


ope 


388 


Other 
coinci- 
dences ac- 
cidental. 


The de- 
struction 
of the 
Persian 
empire 
not ad- 
verse 


THE ESSENES. 


might not have derived this impulse from a higher source, but 
because this feature was very likely to recommend the Zoroastrian 
system to their favourable notice, and because also the particular 
form which the zeal for purity took among them was at all events 
congenial to the teaching of the Zend-Avesta, and may not have 
been altogether free from its influences. 

I have preferred dwelling on these broader resemblances, because 
they are much more significant than any mere coincidence of details, 
which may or may not have been accidental. Thus for instance the 
magi, like the Essenes, wore white garments, and eschewed gold 
and ornaments; they practised frequent lustrations; they avoided 
flesh, living on bread and cheese or on herbs and fruits; they 
had different orders in their society ; and the like’. All these, as I 
have already remarked, may be the independent out-growth of the 
same temper and direction of conduct, and need not imply any direct 
historical connexion. Nor is there any temptation to press such 
resemblances; for even without their aid the general connexion seems 
to be sufficiently established *, 

But it is said, that the history of Persia does not favour the 
hypothesis of such an influence as is here assumed. The destruction 
of the Persian empire by Alexander, argues Zeller*, and the subse- 
quent erection of the Parthian domination on its ruins, must have 
been fatal to the spread of Zoroastrianism. From the middle of the 
third century before Christ, when the Parthian empire was esta- 
blished, till towards the middle of the third century of our era, 


1 Hilgenfeld (Zeitschrift x. p. 99 sq.) 
finds coincidences even more special 
than these. He is answered by Zeller 
(111. 2, p. 276), but defends his posi- 
tion again (Zeitschrift x1. p. 347 8q.), 
though with no great success. Among 
other points of coincidence Hilgenfeld 
remarks on the axe (Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 
7) which was given to the novices 
among the Essenes, and connects it 
with the déwouarrela (Plin. N. H. 
xxxvi. 19) of the magi. Zeller con- 
tents himself with replying that the 
use of the axe among the Essenes for 
purposes of divination is a pure con- 
jecture, not resting on any known 
fact. He might have answered with 


much more effect that Josephus else- 
where (§ 9) defines it as a spade or 
shovel, and assigns to it a very dif- 
ferent use. Hilgenfeld has damaged 
his cause by laying stress on these 
accidental resemblances. So far as 
regards minor coincidences, Zeller 
makes out as good a case for his 
Pythagoreans, as Hilgenfeld for his 
magians. 

2 Those who allow any foreign 
Oriental element in Essenism most 
commonly ascribe it to Persia: e.g. 
among the more recent writers, Hil- 
genfeld (1. c.), and Lipsius Schenkel’s 
Bibel-Lexikon s. v. Essier p. 189. 

3 1c. p. 275. 


THE ESSENES. 389 


when the Persian monarchy and religion were once more restored’, 
its influence must have been reduced within the narrowest limits. 
Does not the butfavour- 


ate - 1 
history of the Jews themselves show that the religious influence of ee ie 


But does analogy really suggest such an inference ? 


a people on the world at large may begin just where its national Parsism. 
life ends? The very dispersion of Zoroastrianism, consequent on the 
fall of the empire, would impregnate the atmosphere far and wide ; 
and the germs of new religious developments would thus be implanted 
in alien soils. 
not wished to imply that this Jewish sect consciously incorporated 


For in tracing Essenism to Persian influences I have 


the Zoroastrian philosophy and religion as such, but only that 
Zoroastrian ideas were infused into its system by more or less direct 

contact, And, as a matter of fact, it seems quite certain that Persian 

ideas were widely spread during this very interval, when the Persian 
nationality was eclipsed. It was then that Hermippus gave to the Indica-_ 
Greeks the most detailed account of this religion which had ever been era ats 
laid before them’. It was then that its tenets suggested or moulded meer ae 
the speculations of the various Gnostic sects. It was then that en 
the worship of the Persian Mithras spread throughout the Roman 

Empire. 


root in Asia Minor, making for itself (as it were) a second home in 


It was then, if not earlier, that the magian system took 


Cappadocia®. It was then, if not earlier, that the Zoroastrian demon- 
ology stamped itself so deeply on the apocryphal literature of the 
Jews themselves, which borrowed even the names of evil spirits * 
from the Persians. There are indeed abundant indications that 
Palestine was surrounded by Persian influences during this period, 
when the Persian empire was in abeyance. 


Thus we seem to have ample ground for the view that certain 


1 See Gibbon Decline and Fall 
c. viii, Milman History of Christianity 
II. p. 247 8q. The latter speaks of 


the Science of Language ist ser. p. 86. 
3 Strabo xv. 3. 15 (p. 733) Ev dé 77 
Karradoxig (rodd yap éxed To Tév Ma- 


this restoration of Zoroastrianism, as 
‘perhaps the only instauce of the 
vigorous revival of a Pagan religion.’ 
It was far purer and less Pagan than 
the system which it superseded; and 
this may account for its renewed life. 
2 See Miiller Fragm. Hist. Graec. 
II. p. 53 sq. for this work of Hermip- 
pus repli Mdywy. He flourished ‘about 
B.C. 200. See Max Miiller Lectures on 


ywv pirdov, of kat mipadot Kadovvrac’ 
moda 6é kal tov Ilepoixdv Pedy iepa) 
K.T.A. 

4 At least in one instance, Asmo- 
deus (Tob. iii. 17); see M. Miiller 
Chips from a German Workshop 1. 
p. 148 sq. For the different dates as- 
signed to the book of Tobit see Dr 
Westcott’s article Tobit in Smith’s 
Dictionary of the Bible p. 1525. 


390 


Are Bud- 
dhist in- 
fluences 

also per- 
ceptible? 


Supposed 
Buddhist 
establish- 
ment at 
Alexan- 
aria. 


The au- 
thority 
misinter- 
preted 


THE ESSENES. 


alien features in Essene Judaism were derived from the Zoroastrian 
religion. But are we justified in going a step further, and attribut- 
ing other elements in this eclectic system to the more distant East 4 
The monasticism of the Buddhist will naturally occur to our 
minds, as a precursor of the cenobitic life among the Essenes; and 
Hilgenfeld accordingly has not hesitated to ascribe this characteristic 
of Essenism directly to Buddhist influences’, But at the outset 
we are obliged to ask whether history gives any such indication 
of the presence of Buddhism in the West as this hypothesis requires, 
Hilgenfeld answers this question in the affirmative. He points 
confidently to the fact that as early as the middle of the second 
century before Christ the Buddhist records speak of their faith as 
flourishing in Alasanda the chief city of the land of Yavana, The 
place intended, he conceives, can be none other than the great 
Alexandria, the most famous of the many places bearing the name’. 
In this opinion however he stands quite alone. Neither Képpen’*, 
who is his authority for this statement, nor any other Indian 
scholar *, so far as I am aware, for a moment contemplates this identi- 
fication. Yavana, or Yona, was the common Indian name for the 
Greco-Bactrian kingdom and its dependencies’; and to this region 
we naturally turn. The Alasanda or Alasadda therefore, which is 
here mentioned, will be one of several Eastern cities bearing the name 
of the great conqueror, most probably Alexandria ad Caucasum. 


1 Zeitschrift x. p. 103 Sq.; comp. 
xI. p. 351. M. Renan also (Langues 
Sémitiques ut. iv. 1, Vie de Jésus 
p. 98) suggests that Buddhist infiuences 
operated in Palestine. 

2 x, p. 105 ‘was schon an sich, 
zumal in dieser Zeit, schwerlich Alex- 
andria ad Caucasum, sondern nur 
Alexandrien in Aegypten bedeuten 
kann.’ Comp. xI. p. 351, where he 
repeats the same argument in reply to 
Zeller. This is a very natural in- 
ference from a western point of view ; 
but, when we place ourselves in the 
position of a Buddhist writer to whom 
Bactria was Greece, the relative pro- 
portions of things are wholly changed. 

3 Die Religion des Buddha i. p. 193. 

4 Comp. e.g. Weber Die Verbin- 
dungen Indiens mit den Ldndern im 
Westen p.675 in the Allgem. Monatsschr. 


jf. Wissensch. u. Literatur, Braun- 
schweig 1853; Lassen Indische Alter- 
thumskunde 1. p. 236; Hardy Manual 
of Budhism p. 516. 

5 For its geographical meaning in 
older Indian writers see Koppen l. ¢. 
Since then it has entirely departed 
from its original signification, and 
Yavana is now a common term used 
by the Hindoos to designate the Mo- 
hammedans. Thus the Greek name 
has come to be applied to a people 
which of all others is most unlike the 
Greeks. This change of meaning ad- 
mirably illustrates the use of "E\Ayv 
among the Jews, which in like man- 
ner, from being the name of an alien 
nation, became the name of an alien 
religion, irrespective of nationality ; 
see the note on Gal. ii. 3. 


THE ESSENES. 391 


But indeed I hardly think that, if Hilgenfeld had referred to the 
original authority for the statement, the great Buddhist history 
Mahawanso, he would have ventured to lay any stress at all on 


The historian, or rather and wholly 
untrust- 
worthy im 


lating the foundation of the Mah4 thipo, or great tope, at Ruanwelli itself. 
by the king Dutthagamini in the year B.c. 157. Beyond the fact 
that this tope was erected by this king the rest is plainly legendary. 
All the materials for the construction of the building, we are told, 
appeared spontaneously as by miracle—the bricks, the metals, the 


this notice, as supporting his theory. 
fabulist (for such he is in this earlier part of his chronicle), is re- 


precious stones. The dewos, or demons, lent their aid in the erection. 
In fact 
the fabric huge 
Rose like an exhalation. 

Priests gathered in enormous numbers from all the great Buddhist 
One 
place alone sent not less than 96,000. Among the rest it is mentioned 
that ‘Maha Dhammarakkito, théro (i.e. senior priest) of Yéna, accom- 
panied by 30,000 priests from the vicinity of Alasadda, the capital 
of the Yona country, attended’.’ It is obvious that no weight can 
be attached to a statement occurring as part of a story of which 
the other details are so manifestly false. An establishment of 
30,000 Buddhist priests at Alexandria would indeed be a pheno- 


monasteries to do honour to the festival of the foundation. 


menon of which historians have shown a strange neglect. 


Nor is the presence of any Buddhist establishment even on a Genera! 


much smaller scale in this important centre of western civilisation nea 


at all reconcilable with the ignorance of this religion, which the dbism in 


the Wesi. 
Greeks and Romans betray at a much later date*, For some centu- eer 


ries after the Christian era we find that the information possessed by 
western writers was most shadowy and confused; and in almost 
every instance we are able to trace it to some other cause than the 
Thus Strabo, 


actual presence of Buddhists in the Roman Empire’. Strabo. 


1 Mahawanso p. 171, Turnour’s may allow that single Indians would 


translation. 

2 How for instance, if any such 
establishment had ever existed at 
Alexandria, could Strabo have used 
the language which is quoted in the 
next note? 

3 Consistently with this view, we 


visit Alexandria from time to time for 
purposes of trade or for other reasons, 
and not more than this is required by 
the rhetorical passage in Dion Chry- 
sost. Or, xxxii (p. 373) 690 ydp éywye 
ob pdvov "EXAnvas map’ wyiv...... aro 
kel Baxrplous kai ZKvOas al Iépcas kai 


392 


THE ESSENES. 


who wrote under Augustus and Tiberius, apparently mentions the 
Buddhist priests, the sramanas, under the designation sarmance (Zap- 
pavas)'; but he avowedly obtains his information from Megasthenes, 


"Ividv ruwds. The qualifying rwds 
shows how very slight was the com- 
munication between India and Alex- 
andria. The mission of Pantenus 
may have been suggested by the pre- 
sence of such stray visitors. Jerome 
(Vir. Ill. 36) says that he went ‘roga- 
tus ab illius gentis legatis.’ It must 
remain doubtful however, whether 
some other region than Hindostan, 
such as Althiopia for instance, is not 
meant, when Pantenus is said to have 
gone to India: see Cave’s Lives of the 
Primitive Fathers p. 188 sq. 

How very slight the communication 
was between India and the West in 
the early years of the Christian era, 
appears from this passage of Strabo 
xv. 1. 4 (p. 686); Kal of viv 5é é& Alyr- 
Tou mAéovres éusrroptkol TH Nel\w xal TO 
"ApaBlw Kdd\rw méxpe THs “IvdiKqs oma- 
viot ev Kal mepuremDevKacte wéxpt TOU 
Tayyov, kal ovra 8 liudrac Kali ovdév 
mpos isroplay Trav Témwv xpjomor, after 
which he goes on to say that the only 
instance of Indian travellers in the 
West was the embassy sent to Augus- 
tus (see below p. 394), which came ag’ 
évos Témov Kal map’ évos Baciréws. 

The communications between India 
and the West are investigated by two 
recent writers, Reinaud Relations Poli- 
tiques et Commerciales de VEmpire 
Romain avec VAsie Centrale, Paris 
1863, and Priaulx The Indian Travels 
of Apollonius of Tyana and the Indian 
Embassies to Rome, 1873. The latter 
work, which is very thorough and 
satisfactory, would have saved me 
much labour of independent investiga- 
tion, if I had seen it in time. 

1 Strabo xv. 1. 59, p. 712. In the 
mss it is written Tapuavas, but this 
must be an error either introduced by 
Strabo’s transcribers or found in the 
copy of Megasthenes which this author 
used. This is plain not only from the 
Indian word itself, but also from the 
parallel passage in Clement of Alexan- 
dria (Strom. i. 15). From the coin- 


cidences of language it is clear that 
Clement also derived his information 
from Megasthenes, whose name he 
mentions just below. The fragments 
of Megasthenes relating to the Indian 
philosophers will be found in Miiller 
Fragm. Hist. Graec. 1. p. 437. They 
were previously edited by Schwanbeck, 
Megasthenis Indica (Bonne 1846). 

For Zapydvac we also find the form 
Zapavatoc in other writers; e.g. Clem. 
Alex. 1. c., Bardesanes in Porphyr. de 
Abstin. iv. 17, Orig. c. Cels. i. 1g (1. 
p- 342). This divergence is explained 
by the fact that the Pali word sammana 
corresponds to the Sanskrit sramana. 
See Schwanbeck, 1. c. p. 17, quoted by 
Miiller, p. 437. 

It should be borne in mind however, 
that several eminent Indian scholars 
believe Megasthenes to have meant 
not Buddhists but Brahmins by his 
Zapudvas. So for instance Lassen 
Rhein. Mus. 1833, p. 180 sq., Ind. 
Alterth. 11. p. 7oo: and Prof. Max. 
Miiller (Pref. to Rogers’s Translation 
of Buddhaghosha’s Parables, London 
1870, p. lii) says; ‘That Lassen is 
right in taking the Zapydvar, men- 
tioned by Megasthenes, for Brahmanice, 
not for Buddhist ascetics, might be 
proved also by their dress. Dresses 
made of the bark of trees are not 
Buddhistic.’ If this opinion be correct, 
the earlier notices of Buddhism in 
Greek writers entirely disappear, and 
my position is strengthened. But for 
the following reasons the other view 
appears to me more probable: (1) The 
term sramana is the common term 
for the Buddhist ascetic, whereas it 
is very seldom used of the Brahmin. 
(2) The Zdppavos (another form of 
sramana), mentioned below p. 394, 
note 2, appears to have been a 
Buddhist. This view is taken even 
by Lassen, Ind. Alterth. 11. p. 60. 
(3) The distinction of Boaxpudaves and 
Sapudvac in Megasthenes or the writers 
following him corresponds to the dis- 


THE ESSENES. 393 


who travelled in India somewhere about the year 300 B.c. and wrote 


Thus too Bardesanes at a much later date Barde- 
sanes. 


a book on Indian affairs. 
gives an account of these Buddhist ascetics, without however naming 
the founder of the religion; but he was indebted for his knowledge 
of them to conversations with certain Indian ambassadors who visited 
Syria on their way westward in the reign of one of the Antonines’'. 
Clement of Alexandria, writing in the latest years of the second Clement 

century or the earliest of the third, for the first? time mentions ae aaah 


Buddha by name; and even he betrays a strange ignorance of this 


Eastern religion’. 


tinction of Bpayyudves and Zapavator 
in Bardesanes, Origen, and others; 
and, as Schwanbeck has shown (1. ¢.), 
the account of the Dapuavac in Mega- 
sthenes for the most part is a close 
parallel to the account of the Zayavaio 
in Bardesanes (or at least in Por- 
phyry’s report of Bardesanes), It 
seems more probable therefore that 
Megasthenes has been guilty of con- 
fusion in describing the dress of the 
Zapuava, than that Brahmins are in- 
tended by the term. 

The Pali form, Dayavain, as a de- 
signation of the Buddhists, first occurs 
in Clement of Alexandria or Barde- 
sanes, whichever may be the earlier 
writer. It is generally ascribed to 
Alexander Polyhistor, who flourished 
B.c. 80—60, because his authority is 
quoted by Cyril of Alexandria (c. 
Julian, iv. p. 133) in the same context 
in which the Zauavatu are mentioned. 
This inference is drawn by Schwan- 
beck, Max Miiller, Lassen, and others. 
An examination of Cyril’s language 
however shows that the statement for 
which he quotes the authority of Alex- 
ander Polyhistor does not extend to 
the mention of the Samanzi. Indeed 
all the facts given in this passage of 
Cyril (including the reference to Poly- 
histor) are taken from Clement of 
Alexandria (Strom. i. 15; see below n. 
3), whose account Cyril has abridged. 
It is possible indeed that Clement 
himself derived the statement from 
Polyhistor, but nothing in Clement’s 
own language points to this. 

1 The narrative of Bardesanes is 


given by Porphyry de Abst, iv. 17. 
The Buddhist ascetics are there called 
Zapuavato. (see the last note). The 
work of Bardesanes, recounting his 
conversations with these Indian am- 
bassadors, is quoted again by Porphyry 
in a fragment preserved by Stobz«eus 
Ecl. iii. 56 (p. 141). ‘In this last pas- 
sage the embassy is said to have arrived 
éml ris BaciNelas THs “Avrwrivouv rod ef 
’Euiodv, by which, if the words be 
correct, must be meant Elagabalus 
(A.D. 218—222), the spurious Antonine 
(see Hilgenfeld Bardesanes p. 12 8q.). 
Other ancient authorities however place 
Bardesanes in the reign of one of the 
older Antonines ; and, as the context 
is somewhat corrupt, we cannot feel 
quite certain about the date. Barde- 
sanes gives by far the most accurate 
account of the Buddhists to be found 
in any ancient Greek writer; but even 
here the monstrous stories, which the 
Indian ambassadors related to him, 
show how little trustworthy such 
sources of information were. 

2 Except possibly Arrian, Ind. viii. 
1, who mentions an ancient Indian 
king, Budyas (Bovétas) by name; but 
what he relates of him is quite incon- 
sistent with the history of Buddha, 
and probably some one else is intended. 

3 In this passage (Strom. i. 15, p. 
359) Clement apparently mentions © 
these same persons three times, sup- 
posing that he is describing three dif- 
ferent schools of Oriental philosophers. 
(1) He speaks of Sauavaioe Baxrpwy 
(comp. Cyrill. Alex. 1. ¢.); (2) He dis- 
tinguishes two classes of Indian gymno- 


394 


Hippoly- 
tus. 


A Bud- 
dhist at 
Athens. 


TilE ESSENES. 


Still later than this, Hippolytus, while he gives a fairly intelligent, 
though brief, account of the Brahmins’, says not a word about the 
Buddhists, though, if he had been acquainted with their teaching, 
he would assuredly have seen in them a fresh support to his theory 


of the affinity between Christian heresies and pre-existing heathen phi- 


losophies. 


With one doubtful exception—an Indian fanatic attached 


to an embassy sent by king Porus to Augustus, who astonished the 


Greeks and Romans by burning 


sophists, whom he calls Zapudvac and 
Bpaxvavat. These are Buddhists and 
Brahmins respectively (sce p. 392, noto 
1); (3) He says afterwards elot 6¢ 
riv “Ivédv ol rots Bodrra ecOduevor 
mapayyéApacw, dy dv’ drepBodrnv ceu- 
vornros els [ws?] @Oedv rerTiunKact. 
Schwanbeck indeed maintains that Cle- 
ment here intends to describe the same 
persons whom he has just mentioned 
as Lapuavac; but thisis not the natural 
interpretation of his language, which 
must mean ‘There are also amonz 
the Indians those who obey the pre- 
cepts of Buddha.’ Probably Schwan- 
beck is right in identifying the Dapuca- 
vat with the Buddhist ascetics, but 
Clement appears not to have known 
this. In fact he has obtained his in- 
formation from different sources, and 
so repeated himself without being aware 
of it. Where he got the first fact it is 
impossible to say. The second, as we 
saw, was derived from Megasthenes. 
The third, relating to Buddha, came, 
as we may conjecture, either from 
Pantenus (if indeed Hindostan is 
really meant by the India of his mis- 
sionary labours) or from some chance 
Indian visitor at Alexandria. 

In another passage (Strom. iii. 7, 
p- 539) Clement speaks of certain In- 
dian celibates and ascetics, who are 
called Zeuvof. As he distinguishes 
them from the gymnosophists, and 
mentions the pyramid as a sacred 
building with them, the identification 
with the Buddhists can hardly be 
doubted. Here therefore Leprol is a 
Grecized form of Zauavatoc ; and this 
modification of the word would occur 
naturally to Clement, because gepvol, 
ceuvetov, were already used of the ascetic 


himself alive at Athens?—-there 


life: e.g. Philo de Vit. Cont. 3 (p. 
475M) lepov & wadetrar cemvetov Kat 
KovacTipiov év @ povotmevoe Ta TOU 
genvob Blov pvorypia TedoUyTaL. 

1 Haer, i. 24. 

2 The chief authority is Nicolaus of 
Damascus in Strabo xv. 1. 73 (p. 270). 
The incident is mentioned also in Dion 
Cass, liv.9. Nicolaus had met these 
ambassadors at Antioch, and gives an 
interesting account of the motley com- 
pany and their strange presents. This 
fanatic, who was one of the number, 
immolated himself in the presence of 
an astonished crowd, and perhaps of 
the emperor himself, at Athens. He 
anointed himself and then leapt smil- 
ing on the pyre. The inscription on 
his tomb was Zapyuavoxryas ‘Ivéos dd 
Bapyéons xard ta wdrow “Ividv &n 
éaurov dwaPavaricas keira. The tomb 
was visible at least as late as the age 
of Plutarch, who recording the self- 
immolation of Calanus before Alexan- 
der (Vit. Alex. 69) says, Toro toXXots 
éresw worepov addos "Ivdds év ’"AOjvats 
Kaloape ovvwv érolnoe, kat delxvuTar 
méxpe viv To pynmetov “Ivdod mpocayo- 
pevouevov. Strabo also places the two 
incidents in conjunction in another 
passage in which he refers to this 
person, xv. 1. 4 (p. 686) 6 xaraxavoas 
éavrov AOnvnoe coguoris Ivdds, xabdmep 
kalo KdXavos k.7.X. 

The reasons for supposing this per- 
son to have been a Buddhist, rather 
than a Brahmin, are: (1) The name 
Zapuavoxnyas (which appears with 
some variations in the mss of Strabo) 
being apparently the Indian sramana- 
karja, i.e. ‘teacher of the ascetics,’ 
in other words, a Buddhist priest; 
(2) The place Bargosa, i.e. Barygaza, 


THE ESSENES. 395 


is apparently no notice in either heathen or Christian writers, which 
points to the presence of a Buddhist within the limits of the Roman 
Empire, till long after the Essenes had ceased to exist’. 

And if so, the coincidences must be very precise, before we are The al- 


justified in attributing any peculiarities of Essenism to Buddhist rege ee 
influences. This however is far from being the case. They both ee : 
nothing. 


exhibit a well-organized monastic society: but the monasticism 

of the Buddhist priests, with its systematized mendicancy, has little Monasti- 
in common with the monasticism of the Essene recluse, whose life” 
They both enjoin celibacy, Asceti- 
both prohibit the use of flesh and of wine, both abstain from the a 


slaughter of animals. 


was largely spent in manual labour. 


But, as we have already seen, such resem- 
blances prove nothing, for they may be explained by the inde- 
pendent development of the same religious principles. One coincidence, 
and one only, is noticed by Hilgenfeld, which at first sight seems 


more striking and might suggest a historical connexion. He observes Four or- 
that the four orders of the Essene community are derived from the ae Ae 
where Buddhism flourished in that 


age. See Priaulx p. 78 sq. In Dion 


kavOnoouae or ta Kavxnowua. Dion 
Cassius (l.c.) suggests that the deed 


Cassius it is written Zdpuapos. 

And have we not here an explana- 
tion of 1 Cor. xili. 3, if Wa xavOjoo- 
wat be the right reading? The pas- 
sage, being written before the fires of 
the Neronian persecution, requires ex- 
planation. Now it is clear from Plu- 
tarch that the ‘Tomb of the Indian’ 
was one of the sights shown to stran- 
gers at Athens: and the Apostle, who 
observed the altar ATNWCTW! 8EUDdI, 
was not likely to overlook the sepul- 
chre with the strange inscription 
EAYTON ATIAOANATICAC KEITAL In- 
deed the incident would probably be 
pressed on his notice in his discussions 
with Stoics and Epicureans, and he 
would be forced to declare himself as 
to the value of these Indian self-im- 
molations, when he preached the doc- 
trine of self-sacrifice. We may well 
imagine therefore that the fate of this 
poor Buddhist fanatic was present to 
his mind when he penned the words 
kal éay mapade 7d cad pov...dydarny be 
pyexw, ovdev WPeXodua. Indeed it would 
furnish an almost equally good illus- 
tration of the text, whether we read iva 


was done vd gidorimas or els érldectw. 
How much attention these religious 
suicides of the Indians attracted in the 
Apostolic age (doubtless because the 
act of this Buddhist priest had brought 
the subject vividly before men’s minds 
in the West), we may infer from the 
speech which Josephus puts in the 
mouth of Eleazar (B. J. vii. 8. 7), BXé- 
Yupev els "Ivdods rods codlayv aoxely br- 
toxvougevous...ol dé... rupl Td copa 
wapaddvres, drws 57 Kal Kabapwrarny 
Groxplywot Tod swuaros THY WuxnY, du- 
voumevo. TeNeuTGor...ap’ ov ovK aildov- 
Mea xetpov Ivday ppovodytes ; 

1 In the reign of Claudius an em- 
bassy arrived from Taprobane (Ceylon) ; 
and from these ambassadors Pliny de- 
rived his information regarding the 
island, N. H. vi. 24. Respecting their 
religion however he says only two 
words ‘coli Herculem,’ by whom pro- 
bably Rama is meant (Priaulx p. 116). 
From this and other statements it 
appears that they were Tamils and 
not Singalese, and thus belonged to 
the non-Buddhist part of the island; 
see Priaulx p. gt 8q. 


396 


Buddhist 
influences 
seen first 
in Mani- 
cheism. 


THE ESSENES. 


four steps of Buddhism. Against this it might fairly be argued 
that such coincidences of numbers are often purely accidental, 
and that in the present instance there is no more reason for con- 
necting the four steps of Buddhism with the four orders of Essenism 
than there would be for connecting the ten precepts of Buddha 
with the Ten Commandments of Moses. But indeed a nearer 
examination will show that the two have nothing whatever in 
common except the number. The four steps or paths of Buddhism 
are not four grades of an external order, but four degrees of spiritual 
progress on the way to nirvana or annihilation, the ultimate goal 
of the Buddhist’s religious aspirations. They are wholly uncon- 
nected with the Buddhist monastic system, as an organization. 
A reference to the Buddhist notices collected in Hardy’s astern 
Monachism (p. 280 sq.) will at once dispel any suspicion of a 
A man may attain to the highest of these four stages 


He does not need to 


resemblance. 
of Buddhist illumination instantaneously. 
have passed through the lower grades, but may even be a layman 
at the time. Some merit obtained in a previous state of existence 
may raise him per saltum to the elevation of a rahat, when all 
earthly desires are crushed and no future birth stands between him 
and nirvana. There remains therefore no coincidence which would 
suggest any historical connexion between Essenism and Buddhism, 
Indeed it is not till some centuries later, when Manicheism’ starts 
into being, that we find for the first time any traces of the influence 


of Buddhism on the religions of the West’. 


1 Even its influence on Manicheism 
however is disputed in a learned article 
in the Home and Foreign Review ut. 
p. 143 8q. (1863), by Mr P. Le Page 
Renouf (see Academy 1873, p. 399). 

2 An extant inscription, containing 
an edict of the great Buddhist king 
Asoka and dating about the middle of 
the 3rd century B.c., was explained by 
Prinsep as recording a treaty of this 
monarch with Ptolemy and other suc- 


cessors of Alexander, by whichreligious 
freedom was secured for the Buddhists 
throughout their dominions. If this 
interpretation had been correct, we 
must have supposed that, so far as 
regards Egypt and Western Asia, the 
treaty remained a dead letter. But 
later critics have rejected this interpre- 
tation of its purport: see Thomas’s 
edition of Prinsep’s Essays on Indian 
Antiquities 11. p. 18 sq. 


TWEE 
ESSENISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 


T has become a common practice with a certain class of writers to Thetheory 
, A RATS ! ental oe which ex- 
call Essenism to their aid in accounting for any distinctive features jjaing 
of Christianity, which they are unable to explain in any other aca oo 
way. Wherever some external power is needed to solve a perplexity, outgrowth 


here is the deus ex machina whose aid they most readily invoke. ae wie) 
Constant repetition is sure to produce its effect, and probably not a 
few persons, who want either the leisure or the opportunity to 
investigate the subject for themselves, have a lurking suspicion 
that the Founder of Christianity may have been an Essene, or at 
all events that Christianity was largely indebted to Essenism for its 
doctrinal and ethical teaching’. Indeed, when very confident and 
sweeping assertions are made; it is natural to presume that they 
rest on a substantial basis of fact. Thus for instance we are told by 
one writer that Christianity is ‘Essenism alloyed with foreign ele- 
ments’*: while another, who however approaches the subject in a 
different spirit, says; ‘It will hardly be doubted that our Saviour 
himself belonged to this holy brotherhood, This will especially be 
apparent, when we remember that the whole Jewish community at 
the advent of Christ was divided into three parties, the Pharisees, 
the Sadducees, and the Essenes, and that every Jew had to belong to 
one of these sects. Jesus who in all things conformed to the Jewish 
Jaw, and who was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from 
sinners, would therefore naturally associate Himself with that order 
1 De Quincey’s attempt to prove ceived in a wholly different spirit. from 
that the Essenes were actually Chris- the theories of the writers mentioned 
tians (Works vi. p. 270 8q., Ix. p. 253 ‘in the text; but it is even more un- 
8q.), who used the machinery of an tenable and does not deserve serious 


esoteric society to inculcate their doc- _ refutation. 
trines ‘for fear of the Jews,’ is con- 2 Gratz 11. p. 217. 


398 


tested by 
facts. 


Our Lord 
need not 
have be- 
longed to 
any sect. 


The argu- 
ment from 
the silence 
of the New 
Testa- 
ment an- 
swered. 


THE ESSENES. 


of Judaism which was most congenial to His nature’.’ I purpose 
testing these strong assertions by an appeal to facts. 

For the statements involved in those words of the last extract 
which I have underlined, no authority is given by the writer him- 
self; nor have I been able to find confirmation of them in any 
quarter. On the contrary the frequent allusions which we find to 
the vulgar herd, the idi@ra:, the gam haarets, who are distinguished 
from the disciples of the schools’, suggest that a large proportion of 
the people was unattached to any sect. If it had been otherwise, we 
might reasonably presume that our Lord, as one who ‘in all things 
conformed to the Jewish law,’ would have preferred attaching Him- 
self to the Pharisees who ‘sat in Moses’ seat’ and whose precepts 
He recommended His disciples to obey *, rather than to the Essenes 
who in one important respect at least—the repudiation of the temple 
sacrifices—acted in flagrant violation of the Mosaic ordinances. 

This preliminary barrier being removed, we are free to investi- 
gate the evidence for their presumed connexion. And here we are 
met first with a negative argument, which obviously has great 
weight with many persons. Why, it is asked, does Jesus, who so 
unsparingly denounces the vices and the falsehoods of Pharisees and 
Sadducees, never once mention the Hssenes by way of condemnation, 
or indeed mention them by name at all? Why, except that He 
Himself belonged to this sect and looked favourably on their 
teaching? This question is best answered by another. How can 
we explain the fact, that throughout the enormous mass of tal- 
mudical and early rabbinical literature this sect is not once men- 
tioned by name, and that even the supposed allusions to them, which 
have been discovered for the first time in the present century, turn 
out on investigation to be hypothetical and illusory? The difficulty 
is much greater in this latter instance; but the answer is the same 
in both cases. The silence is explained by the comparative insig- 
nificance of the sect, their small numbers and their retired habits. 
Their settlements were far removed from the great centres of political 
and religious life. Their recluse habits, as a rule, prevented them 
from interfering in the common business of the world. Philo and 
Josephus have given prominence to them, because their ascetic 


1 Ginsburg Essenes p. 24. 3 Matt. xxiii. 2, 3. 
2 See above, p. 366. 


THE ESSENES. 399 


practices invested them with the character of philosophers and 
interested the Greeks and Romans in their history; but in the 
national life of the Jews they bore a very insignificant part’. If the 
Sadducees, who held the highest offices in the hierarchy, are only 
mentioned directly on three occasions in the Gospels’, it can be no 
surprise that the Essenes are not named at all. 

As no stress therefore can be laid on the argument from silence, The posi- 
any hypothesis of connexion between Essenism and Christianity aes 


ments for 
must make good its claims by establishing one or both of these two fontaiae he 
points: first, that there is direct historical evidence of close inter- twofold. 
course between the two; and secondly, that the resemblances of 
doctrine and practice are so striking as to oblige, or at least to 

warrant, the belief in such a connexion. If both these lines of 
argument fail, the case must be considered to have broken down. 

1. On the former point it must be premised that the Gospel 1. Absence 
narrative does not suggest any hint of a connexion. Indeed its general ey ta 
tenor is directly adverse to such a supposition. From first to last it ences 
Jesus and His disciples move about freely, taking part in the nexion. 
common business, even in the common recreations, of Jewish life. 

The recluse ascetic brotherhood, which was gathered about the shores 

of the Dead Sea, does not once appear above the Evangelists’ horizon. 

Of this close society, as such, there is not the faintest indication. 

But two individuals have been singled out, as holding an important Two indi- 
place either in the Evangelical narrative or in the Apostolic Church, Meo: ae 
who, it is contended, form direct and personal links“ of communi- l¢ged. 
cation with this sect. These are John the Baptist and James the 


Lord’s brother. The one is the forerunner of the Gospel, the first 


1 This fact is fully recognised by 
several recent writers, who will not be 
suspected of any undue bias towards 
traditional views of Christian history. 
Thus Lipsius writes (p. 190), ‘In the 
general development of Jewish life 
Essenism occupies a far more sub- 
ordinate place than is commonly 
ascribed to it.” And Keim expresses 
himself to the same effect (1. p. 305). 
Derenbourg also, after using similar 
language, adds this wise caution, ‘In 
any case, in the present state of our 
acquaintance with the Essenes, which 


is so imperfect and has no chance of 
being extended, the greatest prudence 
is required of science, if she prefers to 
be true rather than adventurous, if she 
has at heart rather to enlighten than to 
surprise’ (p. 461). Even Gratz in one 
passage can write soberly on this sub- 
ject: ‘The Essenes had throughout 
no influence on political movements, 
from which they held aloof as far as 
possible’ (111. p. 86). 

2 These are (1) Matt. iii. 7; (2) 
Matt. xvi. 1 8q.; (3) Matt. xxii. 23 sq., 
Mark xii. 18, Luke xx. 27. 


400 


(i) John 
the Bap- 
tist 


not an Es- 
gene. 


External 
resem- 
blanees to 
John in 
Banus, 


THE ESSENES. 


herald of the Kingdom; the other is the most prominent figure in the 
early Church of Jerusalem. 

(i) John the Baptist was an ascetic. His abode was the desert ; 
his clothing was rough; his food was spare; he baptized his 
penitents, Therefore, it is argued, he was an Essene. Between the 
premisses and the conclusion however there is a broad gulf, which can- 
not very easily be bridged over. The solitary independent life, which 
John led, presents a type wholly different from the cenobitic esta- 
blishments of the Essenes, who had common property, common 
meals, common hours of labour and of prayer. It may even be 
questioned whether his food of locusts would have been permitted 
by the Essenes, if they really ate nothing which had life (€uyvyov’). 
And again; his baptism as narrated by the Evangelists, and their 
lustrations as described by Josephus, have nothing in common except 
the use of water for a religious purpose. When therefore we are 
told confidently that ‘his manner of life was altogether after the 
Essene pattern’, and that ‘he without doubt baptized his converts 
into the Essene order, we know what value to attach to this bold 
assertion. If positive statements are allowable, it would be more 
true to fact to say that he could not possibly have been an Essene. 
The rule of his life was isolation ; the principle of theirs, community*. 

In this mode of life John was not singular. It would appear 
that not a few devout Jews at this time retired from the world and 
buried themselves in the wilderness, that they might devote them- 
selves unmolested to ascetic discipline and religious meditation. 
One such instance at all events we have in Banus the master of 
Josephus, with whom the Jewish historian, when a youth, spent 
three years in the desert. This anchorite was clothed in garments 
made of bark or of leaves; his food was the natural produce of the 
earth; he bathed day and night in cold water for purposes of 
purification. To the careless observer doubtless John and Banus 
would appear to be men of the same stamp. In their outward mode 
of life there was perhaps not very much difference*. The conscious- 


1 See above p. 86. Banus as representing an extravagant 
2 Gritz III. p. 100. development of the school of John, 
3 +6 Kowwvytixév, Joseph, B. J. ii. and thus supplying a link between the 
8. 3. See also Philo Fragm. 632 urép real teaching of the Baptist and the 
Tov Kotvwedovs, and the context. dectrine of the Hemerobaptists pro- 
4 Ewald (v1. p. 649) regards this fessing to be derived from him, 


THE ESSENES. 401 


ness of a divine mission, the gift of a prophetic insight, in John was 

the real and all-important distinction between the two. But here who was 
also the same mistake is made ; and we not uncommonly find Banus riddle sh 
described as an Essene. It is not too much to say however, that the 
whole tenor of Josephus’ narrative is opposed to this supposition '.. 

He says that when sixteen years old he desired to acquire a know- 

ledge of the three sects of the Jews before making his choice of one; 

that accordingly he went through (8ujAGov) all the three at the cost 

of much rough discipline and toil ; that he was not satisfied with the 
experience thus gained, and hearing of this Banus he attached 
himself to him as his zealous disciple (CyAwrys éyevopnv avrov) ; that 
having remained three years with him he returned to Jerusalem ; 

and that then, being nineteen years old, he gave in his adhesion to 

the sect of the Pharisees, Thus there is no more reason for con- 
necting this Banus with the Essenes than with the Pharisees. The 

only natural interpretation of the narrative is that he did not belong 

to any of the three sects, but represented a distinct type of religious 

life, of which Josephus was anxious to gain experience. And his 
hermit life seems to demand this solution, which the sequence of the 
narrative suggests. 

Of John himself therefore no traits are handed down which General 
suggest that he was a member of the Essene community. He wasan ical 
ascetic, and the Essenes were ascetics; but this is plainly an inade-. 
quate basis for any such inference. Nor indeed is the relation of his 
asceticism to theirs a question of much moment for the matter in 
hand ; since this was the very point in which Christ’s mode of life 
was so essentially different from John’s as to provoke criticism 
and to point a contrast*, But the later history of his real or sup- 
posed disciples has, or may seem to have, some bearing on this 


1 The passage is so important that 
I give it in full; Joseph. Vit. 2 epi 
éxxaliexa Oé érn -yevduevos EBoudrnOnv Trav 
map nhuiv aipécewy éymeplay raBelr. 
tpeis & eloly atta Papicalwy perv 7 
mpwTn, Kat Laddovealwy 7 Sevrépa, tplrn 
5¢ 4 Eoonvay, xaOws modddxes elraper. 
oTws yap wdunv aipjrecbar Thy dplorny, 
el mdcas KaTtaudbouu. okAnpaywyhoas 
your éuavrov kal moANG tovnbels Tas Tpels 
SiprOov. Kal pnde rv evredOev éurrec- 
play ikavnv éuavr@ vouloas elvar, wvOd- 
Hevds Twa Bavody Svowa Kata Thy épnutav 


COL. 


dcarplBew, éoO7re wev dd Sévdpwv xpw- 
pevov, Tpodiy dé Thy a’roudtws dvopévny 
mporpepduevov, Wuxpw 6 Voare Thy Hué- 
pay kal Thy viKTa modddxKis ovduevov 
mpos ayvelayv, enrwrns éyevdunyv adrod. 
kal duarplyas map’ airg éuavrovds tpeis 
kal Thy ércOuulav Tereudioas els THY rédw 
tréotpepoyv, évveaxaldexa 8 ern exwv 
nptdunv re todireverOar tH Papicalwy 
alpéoe. KaTakoNovOay K.T.Ar. 

2 Matt. ix. 14 8q., xi. 17 sq., Mark 
ii, 18 sq., Luke v. 33, vii. 31 sq. 


26 


402 


TheHeme- 
robaptists. 


(a) Their 
relation to 
John the 
Baptist. 


John’s dis- 
ciples at 
Ephesus. 


THE ESSENES. 


investigation. Towards the close of the first and the beginning 
of the second century we meet with a body of sectarians called 
in Greek Hemerobaptists', in Hebrew Toble-shacharith®, ‘day’ or 
‘morning bathers.’ What were their relations to John the Baptist 
on the one hand, and to the Essenes on the other? Owing to 
the scantiness of our information the whole subject is wrapped in 
obscurity, and any restoration of their history must be more or 
less hypothetical; but it will be possible at all events to suggest 
an account which is not improbable in itself, and which does no 
violence to the extant notices of the sect. 

(a) We must not hastily conclude, when we mect with certain 
persons at Ephesus about the years A.D. 53, 54, who are described 
as ‘knowing only the baptism of John,’ or as having been ‘baptized 
unto John’s baptism®,’ that we have here some early representatives 
of the Hemerobaptist sect. These were Christians, though imperfectly 
informed Christians. Of Apollos, who was more fully instructed by 
Aquila and Priscilla, this is stated in the most explicit terms*. Of 
the rest, who owed their fuller knowledge of the Gospel to St Paul, 
the same appears to be implied, though the language is not free from 
ambiguity’. But these notices have an important bearing on our 
subject ; for they show how profoundly the effect of John’s preaching 
was felt in districts as remote as proconsular Asia, even after a lapse 
of a quarter of a century. With these disciples it was the initial 


1 The word jepoBarrioral is gene- 
rally taken to mean ‘daily-bathers,’ 
pnd this meaning is suggested by Apost. 
Const. vi. 6 oiriwes, Kad?’ éxdorny uepav 
fav un Barrlowvrat, odK ex Oiovow, ib. 23 
dvi kaOnuepwwod év udvov dods Bémriopa, 
Epiphan. Haer. xvii. 1 (p. 37) ef wh Te 
pa Kad’ éxdorny juépav Bamriford tis 
év vdart. But, if the word is intended 
as a translation of Toble-shacharith 
‘morning bathers,’ as it seems to be, 
it must signify rather ‘ day-bathers’ ; 
and this is more in accordance with 
the analogy of other compounds from 
qwepa, aS NuEpbBios, Nuepodpbuos, Huepo- 
gKorros, etc. 

Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 5) represents 
the Essenes as bathing, not at dawn, 
but at the fifth hour, just before their 
meal. This is hardly consistent either 
with the name of the Toble-shacharith, 


or with the Talmudical anecdote of 
them quoted above, p. 369. Of Banus 
he reports (Vit. 2) that he ‘bathed 
often day and night in cold water.’ 

2 See above, p. 368 sq. 

3 The former expression is used of 
Apollos, Acts xviii. 24; the latter of 
‘certain disciples,’ Acts xix. r. 

4 This appears from the whole nar- 
rative, but is distinctly stated in ver. 
25, as correctly read, édléackev dxpiBds 
Ta wept Tod Inoov, not rod Kuplov as in 
the received text. 

5 The miorevoayres in xix. 1 is slightly 
ambiguous, and some expressions in 
the passage might suggest the oppo- 
site: but uadynras seems decisive, for 
the word would not be used absolutely 
except of Christian disciples; comp. 
vi. 1, 2, 7, ix. 10, 19, 26, 38, and fre- 
quently. 


THE ESSENES. 403 


impulse towards Christianity ; but to others it represented a widely 
different form of belief and practice. The Gospel of St John was Professed 
written, according to all tradition, at Ephesus in the later years of pps 
the first century. Again and again the Evangelist impresses on his ‘te. 
readers, either directly by his own comments or indirectly by the 

course of the narrative, the transient and subordinate character of 

John’s ministry. He was not the light, says the Evangelist, but 

came to bear witness of the light’, He was not the sun in the 
heavens: he was only the waning lamp, which shines when kindled 
from without and burns itself away in shining. His light might well 
gladden the Jews while it lasted, but this was only ‘for a season *.’ 
John himself lost no opportunity of bearing his testimony to the 
loftier claims of Jesus*, From such notices it is plain that in the 
interval between the preaching of St Paul and the Gospel of St 

John the memory of the Baptist at Ephesus had assumed a new 
attitude towards Christianity. His name is no longer the sign of 
imperfect appreciation, but the watchword of direct antagonism. 

John had been set up as a rival Messiah to Jesus. In other 

words, this Gospel indicates the spread of Hemerobaptist principles, 

if not the presence of a Hemerobaptist community, in proconsular 

Asia, when it was written. In two respects these Hemerobaptists 
distorted the facts of history. They perverted John’s teaching, and The facts 


; : of histo 
His baptism was no more a single Perec 


they misrepresented his office. 
rite, once performed and initiating an amendment of life; it was a by them. 


He 


result conditional upon the first, see 
1 Pet. ii. 20 el duaprdvovres Kal Koda- 


daily recurrence atoning for sin and sanctifying the person*. 


1 John i. 8. 
2 John v. 35 éxeivos nv 6 Adxvos 6 


kaiduevos kal dalywy x.t.X. The word 
kalew is not only ‘to burn’, but not 
unfrequently also ‘to kindle, to set on 
fire’, as e.g. Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 12 of 
&Adoe dvacrdvres mop éxaov; so that 6 
katduevos May mean either ‘which 
burns away’ or ‘which is lighted’. 
With the former meaning it would de- 
note the transitoriness, with the latter 
the derivative character, of John’s 
ministry. There seems no reason for 
excluding either idea here. Thus the 
whole expression would mean ‘the 
lamp which is kindled and burns away, 
and (only so) gives light’. For an ex- 
ample of two verbs or participles joined 
together, where the second describes a 


gifouevoe Uromeveite...el dyabomoobvres 
kal maoxovres vropuevetre, 1 Thess. iv. x 
ms det meptraretv kal dpéoxew Oe@. 

3 See John i. 15—34, iii. 23—30, 
V. 93 sd77 (comp, x.) 40, ad. “hin 
aspect of St John’s Gospel has been 
brought out by Ewald Jahrb. der Bibl. 
Wissensch. 111. p. 156 sq.; see also 
Geschichte vil. p. 152 8q., die Johan- 
neischen Schriften p. 13. There is 
perhaps an allusion to these ‘ disciples 
of John’ in 1 Joh. v. 6 otc év TO tian 
pévov, GAN év T@VOaTL Kal év TOatyare’ 
kal 7d mvedua x.7.A.; comp. Acts i, 5, 
Kis 16, 31k) 40 

4 Apost. Const. vi. 6; comp. § 23. 
See p. 402, note r. 


26-—2 


404 


Spread of 
Hemero- 
baptist 
principles. 


A wrong 

use made 
of John’s 
name. 


THE ESSENES. 


himself was no longer the forerunner of the Messiah; he was the 
In the latter half of the first century, it would 
seem, there was a great movement among large numbers of the 


very Messiah’. 


Jews in favour of frequent baptism, as the one purificatory rite 
essential to salvation. Of this superstition we have had an instance 
already in the anchorite Banus to whom Josephus attached himself 
as a disciple. Its presence in the western districts of Asia Minor 
is shown by a Sibylline poem, dating about A.D. 80, which I have 
already had occasion to quote*. Some years earlier these sectarians 
are mentioned by name as opposing James the Lord’s brother and 
the Twelve at Jerusalem® Wor is there any reason for questioning 
their existence as a sect in Palestine during the later years of the 
Apostolic age, though the source from which our information comes 
is legendary, and the story itself a fabrication. But when or how 
they first connected themselves with the name of John the Baptist, 
and whether this assumption was made by all alike or only by one 
section of them, we do not know. Such a connexion, however false 
to history, was obvious and natural; nor would it be difficult to 
accumulate parallels to this false appropriation of an honoured name. 
Baptism was the fundamental article of their creed; and John was 
the Baptist of world-wide fame. Nothing more than this was 
needed for the choice of an eponym. From St John’s Gospel 
it seems clear that this appropriation was already contemplated, 
if not completed, at Ephesus before the first century had drawn 
to a close. In the second century the assumption is recognised 
as a characteristic of these Hemerobaptists, or Baptists, as they are 


once called*, alike by those who allow and those who deny its 


1 Clem. Recogn. i. 54 ‘ex discipulis 
Johannis, qui...magistrum suum veluti 
Christum praedicarunt,’ ib. § 60 ‘Hece 
unus ex discipulis Johannis adfirmabat 
Christum Johannem fuisse, et non Je- 
sum; in tantum, inquit, ut et ipse 
Jesus omnibus hominibus et prophetis 
majorem esse pronuntiaverit Johan- 
nem etc.’; see also § 63. 

2 See above, p. 96. 

3 Clem. Recogn. 1. c. This portion 
of the Clementine Recognitions is ap- 
parently taken from an older Judaizing 
romance, the Ascenis of James (see 


Galatians pp. 330, 367). Hegesippus 
also (in Euseb. H. E. iv. 22) mentions 
the Hemerobaptists in his list of Jewish 
sects; and it is not improbable that 
this list was given as an introduction 
to his account of the labours and mar- 
tyrdom of St James (see Euseb. H, E. 
ii. 23). If so, it was probably derived 
from the same source as the notice in 
the Recognitions. 

4 They are called Baptists by Justin 
Mart. Dial. 10, p. 307 4. He mentions 
them among other Jewish sects, with- 
out however alluding to John. 


THE ESSENES. 


justice '. 


given, though wrongly given, to an obscure sect in Babylonia, the 
Mandeans, whose doctrine and practice have some affinities to the 
older sect, and of whom perhaps they are the collateral, if not the 


direct, descendants’. 


(6) Of the connexion between this sect and John the Baptist 


Even in our age the name of ‘John’s disciples’ has been 


405 


(b) Their 
relation 


we have been able to give a probable, though necessarily hypothe- to the 


tical account. 


the Essenes, we find ourselves entangled in a hopeless mesh of 


perplexities. 


But when we attempt to determine its relation to 


The notices are so confused, the affinities so subtle, 
the ramifications so numerous, that it becomes a desperate task to 


distinguish and classify these abnormal Jewish and Judaizing heresies. 


One fact however seems clear that, whatever affinities they may have 


Essenes, 


had originally, and whatever relations they may have contracted They were 


1 By the author of the Recognitions 
(l. c.) who denies the claim; and by 
the author of the Homilies (see below, 
p. 406, note 3), who allows it. 

2 These Mandeans are a rapidly di- 
minishing sect living in the region 
about the Tigris and the Euphrates, 
south of Bagdad. Our most exact 
knowledge of them is derived from 
Petermann (Herzog’s Real-Encyklo- 
pddie s. vv. Mendider, Zabier, and 
Deutsche Zeitschrift 1854 p. 181 sq., 
1856 P. 331 8d.) 342 84., 363 8q-, 386 8q.) 
who has had personal intercourse 
with them; and from Chwolson (die 
Ssabier u. der Ssabismus 1. p. 100 Sq.) 
who has investigated the Arabic autho- 
rities for their earlier history. The 
names by which they are known are 
(1) Mendeans, or more properly Man- 
deans, S131 Mandayé, contracted 
from NTI S39 Manda déchayé ‘the 
word of life.’ This is their own name 
among themselves, and points to their 
Gnostic pretentions. (2) Sabeans, Tsa- 
biyun, possibly from the root YAY ‘to 
dip’ on account of their frequent lus- 
trations (Chwolson 1. p. 110; but see 
Galatians p. 325), though this is 
not the derivation of the word which 
they themselves adopt, and other ety- 
mologies have found favour with some 
recent writers (see Petermann Herzog’s 
Real-Encykl, Suppl. xvii1. p. 342 8. Y. 


Zabier). This is the name by which 
they are known in the Koran and in 
Arabic writers, and by which they call 
themselves when speaking to others. 
(3) Nasoreans, NS) Natsdrayé. 
This term is at present confined to 
those among them who are dis- 
tinguished in knowledge or in business. 
(4) ‘Christians of St John, or Disci- 
ples of St John’ (i.e. the Baptist). 
This name is not known among them- 
selves, and was incorrectly given to 
them by European travellers and mis- 
sionaries. At the same time John the 
Baptist has a very prominent place in 
their theological system, as the one 
true prophet. On the other hand 
they are not Christians in any sense. 
These Mandeans, the true Sabeans, 
must not be confused with the false 
Sabeans, polytheists and _ star-wor- 
shippers, whose locality is Northern 
Mesopotamia. Chwolson (1. p. 139 sq.) 
has shown that these last adopted the 
name in the gth century to escape 
persecution from the Mohammedans, 
because in the Koran the Sabeans, as 
monotheists, are ranged with the Jews 
and Christians, and viewed in a more 
favourable light than polytheists. The 
name however has generally been ap- 
plied in modern times to the false 
rather than to the true Sabeans. 


at first 


406 


distinct, 
if notanta- 
gonistic. 


But after 
the de- 
struction 
of the 
Temple 


THE ESSENES. 


afterwards with one another, the Hemerobaptists, properly speaking, 
were not Essenes, The Sibylline poem which may be regarded as 
in some respects a Hemerobaptist manifesto contains, as we saw, 
many traits inconsistent with pure Essenism’. In two several accounts, 
the memoirs of Hegesippus and the Apostolic Constitutions, the 
Hemerobaptists are expressly distinguished from the Essenes*, In an 
early production of Judaic Christianity, whose Judaism has a strong 
Essene tinge, the Clementine Homilies, they and their eponym are 
condemned in the strongest language. The system of syzygies, or 
pairs of opposites, is a favourite doctrine of this work, and in these 
John stands contrasted to Jesus, as Simon Magus to Simon Peter, as 
the false to the true; for according to this author’s philosophy 
of history the manifestation of the false always precedes the mani- 
festation of the true*. And again, Epiphanius speaks of them as 
agreeing substantially in their doctrines, not with the Essenes, but 
with the Scribes and Pharisees*, His authority on such a point 
may be worth very little ; but connected with other notices, it should 
not be passed over in silence. Yet, whatever may have been their 
differences, the Hemerobaptists and the Essenes had one point of 
direct contact, their belief in the moral efficacy of lustrations. When 
the temple and polity were destroyed, the shock vibrated through 
the whole fabric of Judaism, loosening and breaking up existing 
More es- 
pecially the cessation of the sacrificial rites must have produced 
a profound effect equally on those who, like the Essenes, had con- 


demned them already, and on those who, as possibly was the case 


societies, and preparing the way for new combinations. 


1 See p. 96 sq. point in this writer’s theory, that in 
2 Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. HE. iv.22, the syzygies the true and the false are 
Apost. Const. vi. 6. So also the the male and female principle respect- 


Pseudo-Hieronymus in the Indiculus 
de Haeresibus (Corp. Haeres. 1. p. 283, 
ed. Oehler). 

3 Clem. Hom. ii. 23 “Iwdvyys tis 
éyévero tucpoBamriorys, ds Kal Tod Ku- 
plov iuav "Inood xara tov ris cvgvylas 
Abyor éyévero mpbodos, It is then 
stated that, as Christ had twelve lead- 
ing disciples, so John had thirty. 
This, it is argued, was a providential 
dispensation—the one number repre- 
sents the solar, the other the lunar 
period; and so they illustrate another 


ively. Among these 30 disciples he 
places Simon Magus. With this the 
doctrine of the Mandeans stands in 
direct opposition. They too have their 
syzygies, but John with them repre- 
sents the true principle. . 

4 Haer, xvii. 1 (p. 37) toa rev ypap- 
paréwy kal Papicalwy dpovevca. But 
he adds that they resemble the Sad- 
ducees ‘not only in the matter of the 
resurrection of the dead, but also 
in their unbelief and in the other 
points,’ 


THE ESSENES. 407 


with the Hemerobaptists, had hitherto remained true to the orthodox 
ritual. One grave obstacle to friendly overtures was thus removed ; 
and a fusion, more or less complete, may have been the consequence. 


At all events the relations of the Jewish sects must have been there may 
have been 


materially affected by this great national crisis, as indeed we know to 4's. ci5n 


have been the case. In the confusion which follows, it is impossible 
to attain any clear view of their history. At the beginning of the 
second century however this pseudo-baptist movement received a fresh 
impulse from the pretended revelation of Elchasai, which came from 
the farther East’. 
the history of those Jewish and Judaizing sects whose proper home 
is east of the Jordan’, and who appear to have reproduced, with 
various modifications derived from Christian and Heathen sources, 
the Gnostic theology and the pseudo-baptist ritual of their Essene 
It is still preserved in the records of the only extant 


Henceforth Elchasai is the prominent name in 


predecessors, 
people who have any claim to be regarded as the religious heirs of the 
Essenes. Elchasai is regarded as the founder of the sect of Mandeans’, 

(ii) But, if great weight has been attached to the supposed (ii) James 
connexion of John the Baptist with the Essenes, the case of James the megane 
Lord’s brother has been alleged with still more confidence. Here, 
it is said, we have an indisputable Essene connected by the closest 


family ties with the Founder of Christianity. James is reported to invested 
» With Es- 
5 sene cha- 
drink ; to have eaten no flesh ; to have allowed no razor to touch his rane 
head, no oil to anoint his body; to have abstained from using the ra 
bath; and lastly to have worn no wool, but only fine linen*. Here 


we have a description of Nazarite practices at least and (must it not 


have been holy from his birth; to have drunk no wine nor stron 


be granted) of Essene tendencies also. 
But what is our authority for this description? The writer, from 
whom the account is immediately taken, is the Jewish-Christian his- 


ples, the male and female. This no- 
tice, as far as it goes, agrees with the 


1 See Galatians p. 324 sq. on this 
Book of Elchasai. 


2 See above, p. 374. 

3 See Chwolson 1. p. 112 8q., I. 
p. 5438q. TheArabic writer En-Nedim, 
who lived towards the close of the 
tenth century, says that the founder 
of the Sabeans (i.e. Mandeans) was 


El-chasaich ( - \) who taught 


the doctrine of two coordinate princi- 


account of Elchasai or Elxai in Hip- 
polytus (Haer, ix. 13 sq.) and Epipha- 
nius (Haer. xix. 1 sq.). But the deri- 
vation of the name Elchasai given by 
Epiphanius (Haer. xix. 2) dvvams kexa- 
duuwevn (1D 4M) is different and pro- 
bably correct (see Galatians p. 325). 

« Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. ii. 23, 


408 


But the 
account 
comes 
from 
untrust- 
worthy 
sources. 


No Essene 
features in 
the true 
portraits 
of James 
or of the 
earliest 
disciples, 


THE ESSENES. 


He cannot there- 
And 


his whole narrative betrays its legendary character. Thus his account 


torian Hegesippus, who flourished about A.D. 170. 
fore have been an eye-witness of the facts which he relates. 


of James’s death, which follows immediately on this description, is 
highly improbable and melodramatic in itself, and directly con- 
tradicts the contemporary notice of Josephus in its main facts’. 
From whatever source therefore Hegesippus may have derived his 
information, it is wholly untrustworthy. Nor can we doubt that he 
was indebted to one of those romances with which the Judaizing 
Christians of Essene tendencies loved to gratify the natural curiosity of 
In like 
manner Essene portraits are elsewhere preserved of the Apostles Peter*® 
and Matthew* which represent them as living on a spare diet of 
I believe also that I have elsewhere pointed out 


their disciples respecting the first founders of the Church’. 


herbs and berries. 
the true source of this description in Hegesippus, and that it is taken 
from the ‘Ascents of James’, a Judeo-Christian work stamped, 
as we happen to know, with the most distinctive Essene features®. 
But if we turn from these religious novels of Judaic Christianity 
to earlier and more trustworthy sources of information—to the 
Gospels or the Acts or the Epistles of St Paul—we fail to discover 
the faintest traces of Essenism in James. ‘The historical James,’ 
says a recent writer, ‘shows Pharisaic but not Essene sympathies’.’ 
This is true of James, as it is true of the early disciples in the mother 
Church of Jerusalem generally. The temple-ritual, the daily sacrifices, 
suggested no scruples to them. The only distinction of meats, which 
they recognised, was the distinction of animals clean and unclean as 
laid down by the Mosaic law. The only sacrificial victims, which 
they abhorred, were victims offered to idols. They took their part in 
the religious offices, and mixed freely in the common life, of their 
fellow-Israelites, distinguished from them only in this, that to their 
Hebrew inheritance they superadded the knowledge of a higher truth 


1 See Galatians p. 366 sq. 

2 See Galatians p. 324. 

3 Clem. Hom. xii. 6, where St Peter 
is made to say dpry pdvy Kal édAalas 
XpGpuat, Kal oraviws Aaxdvos; comp. 
XV. 7 Vdaros pdvou Kal dprov. 

4 Clem. Alex. Paedag. ii. 1 (p. 1°74) 
omeppdruv Kat dxpodptwy kat Aaxdywy 
dvev Kpecw perehduBaver. 

5 See Galatians p. 367, note. 


6 Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 16) men- 
tions two points especially, in which 
the character of this work is shown: 
(1) lt represented James as condemn- 
ing the sacrifices and the fire on the 
altar (see above, pp. 371—373): (2) It 
published the most unfounded calum- 
nies against St Paul. 

7 Lipsius, Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexicon, 


p- QI, 


THE ESSENES. 409 


and the joy of a better hope. It was altogether within the sphere of 
orthodox Judaism that the Jewish element in the Christian brother- 
hood found its scope. Essene peculiarities are the objects neither 
of sympathy nor of antipathy. In the history of the infant Church 
for the first quarter of a century Essenism is as though it were not. 

But a time came, when all this was changed. Even as early as the Essene 
year 53, when St Paul wrote to the Romans, we detect practices in the ™4uences 


visible be- 
Christian community of the metropolis, which may possibly have been fore the 


due to Essene influences’. Five or six years later, the heretical ieee. 
teaching which threatened the integrity of the Gospel at Colosse Stolic age. 
shows that this type of Judaism was already strong enough within 
the Church to exert a dangerous influence on its doctrinal purity. 
Then came the great convulsion—the overthrow of the Jewish polity 
and nation. This was the turning-point in the relations between 
Essenism and Christianity, at least in Palestine. The Essenes were Conse- 
extreme sufferers in the Roman war of extermination, It seems Dee 
probable that their organization was entirely broken up. Thus cast war. 
adrift, they were free to enter into other combinations, while the 
shock of the recent catastrophe would naturally turn their thoughts 
into new channels. At the same time the nearer proximity of the 
Christians, who had migrated to Perza during the war, would bring 
them into close contact with the new faith and subject them to its 
influences, as they had never been subjected before’. But, whatever 
may be the explanation, the fact seems certain, that after the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem the Christian body was largely reinforced from their 
ranks. The Judaizing tendencies among the Hebrew Christians, which 
hitherto had been wholly Pharisaic, are henceforth largely Essene. 

2. If then history fails to reveal any such external connexion 2, Do the 


with Essenism in Christ and His Apostles as to justify the opinion eee 

that Essene influences contributed largely to the characteristic features ee ae 

of the Gospel, such a view, if tenable at all, must find its support in g mie : 
nexion? 


some striking coincidence between the doctrines and practices of the 
Essenes and those which its Founder stamped upon Christianity, 
This indeed is the really important point ; for without it the external 
connexion, even if proved, would be valueless. The question is 
not whether Christianity arose amid such and such circumstances, 
but how far it was created and moulded by those circumstances, 


2 Rom. xiv. 2, 21. 3 See Galatians p. 322 sq. 


410 


(i) Observ- 
ance of the 
sabbath. 


THE ESSENES. 


(i) Now one point which especially strikes us in the Jewish 
historian’s account of the Essenes, is their strict observance of 
certain points in the Mosaic ceremonial law, more especially the 
ultra-Pharisaic rigour with which they kept the sabbath. How far 
their conduct in this respect was consistent with the teaching and 
practice of Christ may be seen from the passages quoted in the 


parallel columns which follow : 


‘Jesus went on the sabbath-day 
through the corn fields; and his disci- 
ples began to pluck the ears of corn and 
to eat!....But when the Pharisees saw 
it, they said unto him, ‘Behold, tiy 
disciples do that which it is not lawful 
to do upon the sabbath-day. But he 
said unto them, Have ye not read what 
David did...The sabbath was made 
for man, and not man for the sabbath. 
Therefore the Son of Man is Lord even 
of the sabbath-day...’ 

‘It is lawful to do well on the sab- 
bath-days’ (Matt. xii. r—12; Mark ii. 
23—iii. 6; Luke vi. 1—11, xiv. 1—6. 


1 Gratz (111. p. 233) considers this 
narrative an interpolation made from 
a Pauline point of view (‘eine pau- 
linistische Tendenz-interpolation’), 
This theory of interpolation, inter- 
posing wherever the evidence is unfa- 
vourable, cuts up all argument by the 
roots. In this instance however Gratz 
is consistently carrying out a princi- 
ple which he broadly lays down else- 
where. He regards it as the great 
merit of Baur and his school, that 
they explained the origin of the Gos- 
pels by the conflict of two opposing 
camps, the Ebionite and the Pauline. 
‘By this master-key,’ he adds, ‘criti- 
cism was first put in a position to test 
what is historical in the Gospels, and 
what bears the stamp of a polemical 
tendency (was einen tendentidsen po- 
lemischen Charakter hat). Indeed 
by this means the element of trust- 
worthy history in the Gospels melts 
down to a minimum’ (11. p. 224). In 
other words the judgment is not to be 
pronounced upon the evidence, but 


‘And they avoid...touching any work 
(épdrrecOa épywv) on the sabbath-day 
more scrupulously than any of the Jews 
(Scagpopwrara "Iovdalwy amdvtrwyr); for 


the evidence must be mutilated to suit 
the judgment. The method is not new. 
The sectarians of the second century, 
whether Judaic or anti-Judaic, had 
severally their ‘master-key.’ The 
master-key of Marcion was a conflict 
also—the antagonism of the Old and 
New Testaments. Under his hands 
the historical element in the New Tes- 
tament dissolved rapidly. The mas- 
ter-key of the anti-Marcionite writer 
of the Clementine Homilies was like- 
wise a conflict, though of another 
kind—the conflict of fire and water, of 
the sacrificial and the baptismal sys- 
tems. Wherever sacrifice was men- 
tioned with approval, there was a 
‘ Tendenz-interpolation’ (see above, 
p- 372 sq.). In this manner again the 
genuine element in the Old Testament 
melted down to a minimum. 

2 Gratz however (111. p. 228) sees a 
coincidence between Christ’s teaching 
and Essenism in this notice. Not to 
do him injustice, I will translate his 
own words (correcting however several 


THE ESSZNES. 


See also a similar incident in Luke 
xiii. 1o—17). 

‘The Jews therefore said unto him 
that was cured; It is the sabbath-day; 
it is not lawful for thee to carry thy 
bed. But he answered them, He that 
made me whole, the same said unto 
me, Take up thy bed and walk.... 
Therefore the Jews did persecute Jesus 
and sought to slay him, because he 
did these things on the sabbath-day. 
But Jesus answered them, My Father 
worketh hitherto, and I work, eic. 
(John vy. ro—18; comp. vii. 22, 23). 

‘And it was the sabbath-day when 
Jesus made the clay, and opened his 
eyes...... Therefore said some of the 
Pharisees, This man is not of God, be- 
cause he keepeth not the sabbath-day 
(John ix. 14, 16).’ 


they do not venture so much as to move 
a vessel?, nor to perform the most ne- 
cessary offices of life (B. J. ii. 8. 9).’ 


AI 


(ii) But there were other points of ceremonial observance, in (ii) Lus- 


which the Essenes superadded to the law. 


In this respect 


Of these the most re- Bie 


markable was their practice of constant lustrations. ceremo- 


nial ob- 


the Pharisee was sufficiently minute and scrupulous in his obser- seryances. 
vances ; but with the Essene these ablutions were the predominant 


feature of his religious ritual. 


Here again it will be instructive 


to compare the practice of Christ and His disciples with the practice 


of the Essenes. 


‘And when they saw some of his 
disciples eat bread with defiled (that 
is to say, unwashen) hands; for the 
Pharisees and all the Jews, except 
they wash their hands oft (rvyu7), eat 
not,..The Pharisees and scribes asked 
him, Why walk not thy disciples ac- 
cording to the tradition of the elders 


misprints in the Greek): ‘For the con- 
nexion of Jesus with the Hssenes com- 
pare moreover Mark xi. 16 cal ovk 7optev 
6 "Inoots va tis SievéyKy oKedos did Tov 
tepod with Josephus B. J. ii. 8. 9 dAN’ 
ovde oxedds Te peTaxwicat Pappotory (oi 
*Eooaio).’ He does not explain what 
this notice, which refers solely to the 
scrupulous observance of the sabbath, 
has to do with the profanation.of the 
temple, with which the passage in the 


‘So they wash their whole body 
(dmoAovovrat 7d oma) in cold water; 
and after this purification (dyvetay)... 
being clean (ka@apol) they come to the 
refectory (to dine)...... And when they 
have returned (from their day’s work) 
they sup in like manner (B. J. ii. 
8. 5).’ 


Gospel is alone concerned, I have 
seen Gritz’s history described as a 
‘masterly’ work. The first requisites 
in a historian are accuracy in stating 
facts and sobriety in drawing infer- 
ences. Without these, it is difficult to 
see what claims a history ean have to 
this honourable epithet: and in those 
portions of his work, which I have 
consulted, I have not found either. 


412 


Avoid- 
ance of 
strangers, 


THE ESSENES. 


sibs Sil But he answered...Ye hypocrites, 
laying aside the commandment of God, 
ye hold the tradition of men....’ 

‘Not that which goeth into the 
mouth defileth the man; but that 
which cometh out of the mouth, this 
defileth the man...... Let them alone, 
they be blind leaders of the blind...’ 

‘To eat with unwashen hands de- 
fileth not the man (Matt. xv. 1—20, 
Mark vii. t—23).’ 


‘And when the Pharisee saw it, he 
marvelled that he had not first washed 
before dinner (rov dpicrov). And the 
Lord said unto him: Now do ye Pha- 
risees make clean the outside of the 
cup and the platter...Ye fools...behold 
all things are clean unto you (Luke 
xi, 38—-41).’ 


‘After a year’s probation (the novice) 
is admitted to closer intercourse (mpoa- 
evo &yy.ov TH Stalry), and the lustral 
waters in which he participates have a 
higher degree of purity (kal xa0apwré- 
pwy Tay mpos ayvelay Vidrwy peTadap- 


Bdve, § 7). 


‘It is a custom to wash after it, as 
if polluted by it (§ 9).’ 


‘Racked and dislocated, burnt and 
crushed, and subjected to every in- 
strument of torture ...to make them 
eat strange food (ru trav dov7Owr)... 
they were not induced to submit (§ 10).’ 


‘Exercising themselves in...divers 
lustrations (duag¢opas ayveias...éumat- 
dorprBovpevot, § 12). 


Connected with this idea of external purity is the avoidance of 


contact with strangers, as persons who would communicate cere- 
monial defilement. 
the Pharisee. 
whose profession or character placed them in the category of 


And here too the Essene went much beyond 
The Pharisee avoided Gentiles or aliens, or those 


‘sinners’; but the Essene shrunk even from the probationers and 
inferior grades of his own exclusive community. Here again we 


may profitably compare the sayings and doings of Christ with the 


principles of this sect. 


‘And when the scribes and Phari- 
sees saw him eat with the publicans 
and sinners they said unto the disci- 
ples, Why eateth your Master with the 
publicans and the sinners...’ (Mark 
ii. 15 sq., Matth. ix. 10 sq., Luke vy. 
30 8q.). 

‘They say...a friend of publicans 
and sinners (Matth. xi. 19).’ 

‘The Pharisees and the scribes mur- 
mured, saying, This man receiveth 
sinners and eateth with them (Luke 
xv. 2).’ 

‘They all murmured saying that he 
was gone to be a guest with a man 
that is a sinner (Luke xix. 7).’ 


‘And after this purification they 
assemble in a private room, where no 
person of a different belief (ray érepo- 
dofwv, i.e. not an Essene) is permitted 
to enter ; and (so) being by themselves 
and clean (avrol xa@apol) they present 
themselves at the refectory (demvyr7- 
ptov), as if it were a sacred precinct 


(§ 5). 


THE ESSENES. 


‘Behold, a woman in the city that 
was a sinner...began to wash his feet 
with her tears, and did wipe them 
with the hairs of her head and kissed 
his feet...... Now when the Pharisee 
which had bidden him saw it, he spake 
within himself, saying, This man, if 
he had been a prophet, would have 
known who and what manner of wo- 
man this is that toucheth him; for 
she is a sinner (Luke vii. 37 sq.).’ 


‘And they are divided into four 
grades according to the time passed 
under the discipline: and the juniors 
are regarded as so far inferior to the 
seniors, that, if they touch them, the 
latter wash their bodies clean (dzo- 
AoverOat), aS if they had come in con- 
tact with a foreigner (xa@dmep d))o- 
pvrAw cuppupévTas, § To).’ 


In all these minute scruples relating to ceremonial observances, 
the denunciations which are hurled against the Pharisees in the 
Gospels would apply with tenfold force to the Essenes, 

(iii) Jf the lustrations of the Essenes far outstripped the en- (iii) As- 
actments of the Mosaic law, so also did their asceticism. I have ¢¢ticism. 


given reasons above for believing that this asceticism was founded on 
a false principle, which postulates the malignity of matter and is 
wholly inconsistent with the teaching of the Gospel’. But without 
pressing this point, of which no absolutely demonstrative proof can be 
given, it will be sufficient to call attention to the trenchant contrast 
in practice which Essene habits present to the life of Christ. He 


who ‘came eating and drinking’ 


413 


and was denounced in consequence Rating 


as ‘a glutton and a wine-bibber’,’ He whose first exercise of power #24 drink- 


is recorded to have been the multiplication of wine at a festive enter- 
tainment, and whose last meal was attended with the drinking of 
wine and the eating of flesh, could only have excited the pity, if not 
the indignation, of these rigid abstainers. And again, attention 
should be directed to another kind of abstinence, where the contrast 
is all the more speaking, because the matter is so trivial and the 


scruple so minute. 


‘My head with oil thou didst not 
anoint (Luke vii. 46).’ 

‘ Thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy 
head (Matt. vi. 17).’ 


And yet it has been stated that ‘the Saviour of the world 


‘And they consider oil a pollution 
(xn\t5a), and though one is smeared 
involuntarily, he rubs his body clean 
(cunxerat TO cua, § 3). 


eeeeee 


showed what is required for a holy life in the Sermon on the Mount 


by a description of the Essenes*, 


But much stress has been laid on the celibacy of the Essenes; 


1 See above, p. 87. 


2 Matt, xi. 19, Luke vii. 34. 


3 Ginsburg Essenes p. 14. 


414 
Celibacy. 


(iv) Avoid- 
ance of the 
Temple 
sacrifices. 


THE ESSENES. 


and our Lord’s saying in Matt. xix. 12 is quoted to establish an 
identity of doctrine. Yet there is nothing special in the language 
there used. Nor is there any close affinity between the stern 
invectives against marriage which Josephus and Philo attribute to 
the Essene, and the gentle concession ‘He that is able to receive it, 
let him receive it.” The best comment on our Lord’s meaning here 
is the advice of St Paul’, who was educated not in the Essene, but 
in the Pharisaic school. Moreover this saying must be balanced by 
the general tenour of the Gospel narrative. When we find Christ 
discussing the relations of man and wife, gracing the marriage 
festival by His presence, again and again employing wedding ban- 
quets and wedded life as apt symbols of the highest theological 
truths, without a word of disparagement or rebuke, we see plainly 
that we are confronted with a spirit very different from the narrow 
rigour of the Essenes, 

(iv) But not only where the Essenes superadded to the cere- 
monial law, does their teaching present a direct contrast to the pheno- 
mena of the Gospel narrative. The same is true also of those points 
in which they fell short of the Mosaic enactments. I have already 
discussed at some length the Essene abstention from the temple 
sacrifices’, There can, I think, be little doubt that they objected to 
the slaughter of sacrificial victims altogether. But for my present 
purpose it matters nothing whether they avoided the temple on 
account of the sacrifices, or the sacrifices on account of the temple. 
Christ did neither. Certainly He could not have regarded the 
temple as unholy ; for His whole time during His sojourns at Jeru- 
salem was spent within its precincts. It was the scene of His 
miracles, of His ministrations, of His daily teaching*®, And in like 
manner it is the common rendezvous of His disciples after Him‘, 
Nor again does He evince any abhorrence of the sacrifices. On the 
contrary He says that the altar consecrates the gifts®; He charges 
the cleansed lepers to go and fulfil the Mosaic ordinance and offer 
the sacrificial offerings to the priests®, And His practice also is 


1 y Cor. vii. 26—31. John ii. 14 8q., V. 14, Vil. 14, Vill. 2, 
2 See p. 371 sq. 20, 59, X. 23, Xi. 56, XViil. 20. 
3 Matt. xxi. 12 8q., 23 8q., XXIV. 1 8q., 4 Luke xxiv. 53, Acts ii. 46, iii. 1 


xxvi. 55, Mark xi. 11, 15 SQ., 27, Xil, 8q., V. 20 8q., 42. 
35, xili. 1 8q., xiv. 49, Luke ii. 46, xix. 5 Matt. xxiii. 18 sq.: comp. Vv. 23, 24. 
45, XX. I 8Q., X&l. 37 8Q., xxii. 53, 6 Matt. viii. 4, Marki. 44, Lukev. 14. 


THE ESSENES. 415 


conformable to His teaching. He comes to Jerusalem regularly to Practice 
attend the great festivals, where sacrifices formed the most striking eae 
part of the ceremonial, and He himself enjoins preparation to be @sciples. 
made for the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb. If He repeats the 
inspired warning of the older prophets, that mercy is better than 
sacrifice’, this very qualification shows approval of the practice in 

itself. Nor is His silence less eloquent than His utterances or His 
actions. Throughout the Gospels there is not one word which can 

be construed as condemning the sacrificial system or as implying a 

desire for its cessation until everything is fulfilled. 


(v) This last contrast refers to the ceremonial law. But not (v) Denial 
of the re- 
surrection 


resurrection of the body is a fundamental article in the belief of the eo ite 
ody. 


less wide is the divergence on an important point of doctrine. The 


early disciples. This was distinctly denied by the Essenes*. How- 
ever gross and sensuous may have been the conceptions of the 
Pharisees on this point, still they so far agreed with the teaching of 
Christianity, as against the Essenes, in that the risen man could not, 
as they held, be pure soul or spirit, but must necessarily be body 
and soul conjoint. 

Thus at whatever point we test the teaching and practice of our Some sup- 


Lord by the characteristic tenets of Essenism, the theory of affinity pee 
fails. There are indeed several coincidences on which much stress abe 5 
sidered. 


has been laid, but they cannot be placed in the category of distinct- 
ive features. They are either exemplifications of a higher morality, 
which may indeed have been honourably illustrated in the Essenes, 
but is in no sense confined to them, being the natural outgrowth of 
the moral sense of mankind whenever circumstances are favourable. 
Or they are more special, but still independent developments, which 
owe their similarity to the same influences of climate and soil, 
though they do not spring from the same root. To this latter class 
belong such manifestations as are due to the social conditions of the 
age or nation, whether they result from sympathy with, or from 
repulsion to, those conditions. 


Thus, for instance, much stress has been laid on the aversion to Simplicity 


and bro- 
! ; aye therly 
feeling of brotherhood which distinguished Christians and Hssenes love. 


alike. But what is gained by all this? It is quite plain that 


war and warlike pursuits, on the simplicity of living, and on the 


1 Matt. ix. 13, xi. 7. 2 See above, p. 88. 


A416 


Prohi- 
bition of 
oaths. 


Commu- 
nity of 
goods. 


THE ESSENES. 


Christ would have approved whatever was pure and lovely in the 
morality of the Essenes, just as He approved whatever was true in 
the doctrine of the Pharisees, if any occasion had presented itself 
when His approval was called for. But it is the merest assumption 
to postulate direct obligation on such grounds. It is said however, 
that the moral resemblances are more particular than this. There is 
for instance Christ’s precept ‘Swear not at all...but let your commu- 
nication be Yea, yea, Nay, nay.’ Have we not here, it is urged, 
the very counterpart to the Essene prohibition of oaths’? Yet it 
would surely be quite as reasonable to say that both alike enforce that 
simplicity and truthfulness in conversation which is its own credential 
and does not require the support of adjuration, both having the same 
reason for laying stress on this duty, because the leaders of religious 
opinion made artificial distinctions between oath and oath, as regards 
their binding force, and thus sapped the foundations of public and 
private honesty *. And indeed this avoidance of oaths is anything 
but a special badge of the Essenes. It was inculcated by Pytha- 
goreans, by Stoics, by philosophers and moralists of all schools*. 
When Josephus and Philo called the attention of Greeks and Romans 
to this feature in the Essenes, they were simply asking them to 
admire in these practical philosophers among the ‘barbarians’ the 
realisation of an ideal which their own great men had laid down. 
Even within the circles of Pharisaism language is occasionally heard, 
which meets the Essene principle half-way *. 

And again ; attention has been called to the community of goods 
in the infant Church of Christ, as though this were a legacy of Es- 


senism. But here too the reasonable explanation is, that we have 


1 Jos. B. J. ii. 8.6 wav 7d pyndev br’ 
airav ioxupbrepov Spxov* 7d dé duvvew 
avbrots mepiiararat, XElpov TL THs Emopklas 
brodauBdvovres’ Hn yap Kareyvacbal 
gact Tov dmicrovpevov Sixa Oeod, Philo 
Omn. prob. lib. 12 (11. p. 458) Tod gu- 
Nobéov delyuwata mapéxovrat mupla...7d 
avauorov k.7.\. Accordingly Josephus 
relates (Ant. xv. 10. 4) that Herod the 
Great excused the Essenes from taking 
the oath of allegiance to him. Yet 
they were not altogether true to their 
principles ; for Josephus says (B. d. ii. 
8. 7), that on initiation into the sect 
the members were bound by fearful 
oaths (8pxous ppixwoes) to fulfil certain 


conditions; and he twice again in the 
same passage mentions oaths (duvvovat, 
TovovTors dpxors) in this connexion. 

2 On the distinctions which the 
Jewish doctors made between the va- 
lidity of different kinds of oaths, see 
the passages quoted in Lightfoot and 
Schottgen on Matt. v. 338q. The Tal- 
mudical tract Shebhuoth tells its own 
tale, and is the best comment on the 
precepts in the Sermon on the Mount. 

3 See e.g. the passages in Wetstein 
on Matt. v. 37. 

4 Baba Metsia 49 a. See also Light- 
foot on Matt. v. 34. 


THE ESSENES. 


an independent attempt to realise the idea of brotherhood—an 
attempt which naturally suggested itself without any direct imitation, 
but which was soon abandoned under the pressure of circumstances. 
Indeed the communism of the Christians was from the first wholly 
unlike the communism of the Essenes. The surrender of property 
with the Christians was not a necessary condition of entrance into 
an order ; it was a purely voluntary act, which might be withheld 
without foregoing the privileges of the brotherhood’, And the com- 
mon life too was obviously different in kind, at once more free and 
more sociable, unfettered by rigid ordinances, respecting individual 
liberty, and altogether unlike a monastic rule. 


417 


Not less irrelevant is the stress, which has been laid on an- Prohi- 


other point of supposed coincidence in the social doctrines of the two 
communities. The prohibition of slavery was indeed a highly honour- 
able feature in the Essene order*, but it affords no indication of a 
direct connexion with Christianity. It is true that this social insti- 
tution of antiquity was not less antagonistic to the spirit of the 
Gospel, than it was abhorrent to the feelings of the Essene ; and ulti- 
mately the influence of Christianity has triumphed over it. But the 
immediate treatment of the question was altogether different in the 
two cases. The Essene brothers proscribed slavery wholly ; they 
produced no appreciable results by the proscription, The Christian 
Apostles, without attempting an immediate and violent revolution 
in society, proclaimed the great principle that all men are equal in 
Christ, and left it to work. It did work, like leaven, silently but 
surely, till the whole lump was leavened. In the matter of slavery 
the resemblance to the Stoic is much closer than to the Essene’*, 
The Stoic however began and ended in barren declamation, and no 
practical fruits were reaped from his doctrine. 


bition of 
slavery. 


Moreover prominence has been given to the fact that riches are Respect 


decried, and a preference is given to the poor, in the teaching of our ® 


Lord and His Apostles. Here again, it is urged, we have a dis- 
tinctly Essene feature. We need not stop to enquire with what 
limitations this prerogative of poverty, which appears in the Gospels, 
must be interpreted ; but, quite independently of this question, we may 


1 Acts v. 4. P. 632 ovx dvdparodov, Jos. Ant. xviii, 
? Philo Omn. prob. lib, § 12 (11. p. 1. 5 obre SovAwY Emirndevouer Krhow. 
458) dovAbs Te wap’ avrois ovdé els éorwv 3 See for instance the passages from 


GN’ éhevGepor wdvtes x.7.., Vragm. 11. Seneca quoted in Philippians p. 307. 
COL. 27 


d to 
rty. 


418 


The 
preaching 
of the 
Kingdom 
wrongly 
ascribed 
to the 
Essenes, 


The Es- 
senes not 
prophets, 
but for- 
tune-tell- 
ers. 


THE ESSENES. 


fairly decline to lay any stress on such a coincidence, where all other 
indications of a direct connexion have failed. The Essenes, pursuing a 
simple and ascetic life, made it their chief aim to reduce their material 
wants as far as possible, and in doing so they necessarily exalted 
poverty. Ascetic philosophers in Greece and Rome had done the 
same. Christianity was entrusted with the mission of proclaiming 
the equal rights of all men before God, of setting a truer standard of 
human worth than the outward conventions of the world, of protest- 
ing against the tyranny of the strong and the luxury of the rich, 
of redressing social inequalities, if not always by a present compen- 
sation, at least by a future hope. The needy and oppressed were the 
special charge of its preachers. It was the characteristic feature of 
the ‘Kingdom of Heaven,’ as described by the prophet whose words 
gave the keynote to the Messianic hopes of the nation, that the glad 
tidings should be preached to the poor’. The exaltation of poverty 
therefore was an absolute condition of the Gospel. 

The mention of the kingdom of heaven leads to the last point 
on which it will be necessary to touch before leaving this subject. 
‘The whole ascetic life of the Essenes,’ it has been said, ‘aimed only 
Thus 
John the Baptist was the proper representative of this sect. ‘ From 
the Essenes went forth the first call that the Messiah must shortly 


appear, The kingdom of heaven is at hand”. 


at furthering the Kingdom of Heaven and the Coming Age.’ 


‘The announcement of 
tne kingdom of heaven unquestionably went forth from the Essenes’*. 
For this confident assertion there is absolutely no foundation in fact ; 
and, as a conjectural hypothesis, the assumption is highly improbable. 

As fortune-tellers or soothsayers, the Essenes might be called 
prophets; but as preachers of righteousness, as heralds of the king- 
dom, they had no claim to the title. Throughout the notices in 
Josephus and Philo we cannot trace the faintest indication of Mes- 
sianic hopes. Nor indeed was their position at all likely to foster 


such hopes*. The Messianic idea was built on a belief in the resur- 


1 Ts. lxi. 1 edayyeNoacOa mrwxols, 
quoted in Luke iv. 18. There are 
references to this particular part of the 
prophecy again in Matt. xi. 5, Luke 
vii. 22, and probably also in the beati- 
tude pakaptoe of mrwxol x.7.r., Matt. v. 
3, Luke vi. 20. 

* Gritz Gesch. 11. p. 219. 


340. DAI: 

4 Lipsius Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexikon 
s. v. Essier p. 190, Keim Jesus von 
Nazarat. p. 303. Both these writers ex- 
press themselves very decidedly against 
the view maintained by Gritz. ‘The 
Essene art of soothsaying,’ writes 
Lipsius, ‘has absolutely nothing to do 


TIE ESSENES. 419 


rection of the body. The Essenes entirely denied this doctrine. 

The Messianic idea was intimately bound up with the national hopes 

and sufferings, with the national life, of the Jews. The Essenes had 

no interest in the Jewish polity ; they separated themselves almost They had 
entirely from public affairs, The deliverance of the individual in the te“. 
shipwreck of the whole, it has been well said, was the plain watch- ee 
word of Essenism’. How entirely the conception of a Messiah might 

be obliterated, where Judaism was regarded only from the side of a 

mystic philosophy, we see from the case of Philo. Throughout the 

works of this voluminous writer only one or two faint and doubtful 
allusions to a personal Messiah are found*. The philosophical tenets 

of the Essenes no doubt differed widely from those of Philo; but in 

the substitution of the individual and contemplative aspect of reli- 

gion for the national and practical they were united ; and the effect 

in obscuring the Messianic idea would be the same. When there- 

fore it is said that the prominence given to the proclamation of the 
Messiah’s kingdom is a main link which connects Essenism and 
Christianity, we may dismiss the statement as a mere hypothesis, 
unsupported by evidence and improbable in itself. 


with the Messianic prophecy.’ ‘Ofall Gfrérer’s treatment of the subject, 
this,’ says Keim,’ ‘ there is no trace.’ Philot. p. 486 sq. The treatises which 
1 Keim l. c. bear on this topic are the de Praemiis 
2 How little can be made out of et Poenis (1. p. 408, ed. Mangey) and 
Philo’s Messianic utterances by one the de Execrationibus (1. p. 429). They 
who is anxious to make the most pos- deserve to be read, if only for the nega- 
sible out of them, may be seen from tive results which they yield. 


27-2 


420 


ADDENDA. 


ADDENDA. 


THE following collation of the text of the Epistle to the Laodi- 
ceans in the Za Cava ms (see p. 282) was made by the Rev. J. 
Wordsworth, Fellow of Brasenose. It reached my hands too late for 
insertion in its proper place (p. 287 sq). 

Explicit ad colossenses incipit aepistola ad laudicenses. 

1 Apostolus] om. Laodiciae] laudiciae. 3 orationem omnem] 
homnem horationem. in operibus eius] om. in diem] in diae. 
4 neque destituant etc.] neque destituit vos quorundam vaniloquentia insinu- 
antium hut vos evertant. a me] ha me, 5 ut qui...profectum] hut 
qui sunt ex me perveniant ad profectum. operum etc.] hoperumque salutis 
aeternae (om. vitae). 6 quibus] in quibus. 7 factum etc.] fletum 
orationibus vestris est. administrante etc. 8 vivere] vere vita. 9 ut] 
hut. unanimes] hunanimes. 10 Ergo etc.] ergo dilectissimi hut au- 
distis praesentiam mei (om. ita) reginete. 11 operatur in vos] hoperatur 
in vobis. 13 reliquum] om. sordidos etc.] sordidos in lucro homines. 
sint petitiones. 15 amabilia] add. sunt. 16 Et quae] quae (om. et). 
19 Domini Jhesu] domini nostri jhesu christi. 20 colosensibus et] om. 
Colosensium] colossensium, 


The capitula of 1 Thessalonians follow immediately. 


p. 338 sq. The note on zpecBurns. 

In an inscription given in Wood’s Hphesus, Inscr. vi. 1. p. 24, 1. 72, 
mpeoBevrépos is engraved for tpecBurépors. This example has the 
highest value as an illustration of St Paul, since the inscription 
belongs to the age of Trajan. 


INDEX. 


Abercius (Avircius), Bp. of Hierapolis, 
P- 54 8q- 

Acts of the Apostles; passages ex- 
plained, p. 23 (xill. 4, xvi. 6); Dp. 95 
(xix. 13, 19); P- 304 (xiv. r1) 

edificatoris, the sufferings of Christ 
as, i. 24 

Zilfric on the Epistle to Laodiceans, 
p. 296 

Alasanda or Alasadda, p. 390 sq. 

Alexander of Tralles on charms, p. 92 

Alexander Polyhistor, p. 83, 393 

Alexandria, a supposed Buddhist es- 
tablishment at, p. 390 sq. 

Andrew, St, in Asia, p. 45 

angelolatry condemned, p. ror, 103, 
118, i. 16, li. 10, 15, 18; forbidden 
by the Council of Laodicea, p. 68 

angelology of Cerinthus, p. 110; of 
Essenism, p. 96; of the Jews, ii. 18 

angels, orders of, i. 16 

Anselm of Laon, p. 295 

Antiochus the Great, colony of, in Asia 
Minor, p. 19 

Antiochus Theos refounds Laodicea, 
Pp. § 

aorist, epistolary, iv. 8, Ph. rr, 19,21; 
contrasted with perfect, i. 16 

Apamea, p. 19, 20; Jews at, p. 21 

Apocalypse, correspondences with St 
Paul’s Epistles to Asia, 41 sq. 

apocrypha, use of word, p. go, ii. 3 

Apollinaris, see Claudius Apollinaris 

Apollo Archegetes worshipped at Hie- 
rapolis, p. 12 

Apostolic Fathers, Christology of, p. 
124 


Apostolic Writings, Christology of, p. 
123 

Apphia, wife of Philemon, p. 306; the 
name Phrygian, 306 sq. 

Archippus, iv. 17; son of Philemon, 
308; his office and abode, 309; re- 
buke to, 43 

Arian heresy in Hierapolis and Lao- 
dicea, p. 64 

Arian use of the expression ‘ Firstborn 
of all creation,’ i. 15 

Aristarchus, iy. ro 

Aristion, p. 45 

Aristotle, on slavery, p. 313; definition 
of ‘knowledge,’ ii. 3; of ‘wisdom,’ 
L 

Armagh, Book of, p. 280, 282, 286 

article, omission of the definite, i. 4 

asah, a supposed derivation of Essenes, 
P- 353, 362 

Ascents of James, p. 408 

Asceticism among the Jewish sects, p. 
87; among Colossian heretics, p. 104; 
Essenes, p. 408; a result of Gnostio- 
ism, p. 79 

Aseis, a Laodicean title of Zeus, p. 8 

Asia, meaning of, p. 19 

Asia Minor, geography of, p. 1 sq. ; 
list of writers on, p. 1: how divided 
under the Romans, p. 7; @ modern 
hypothesis about Christianity in, p. 
50 

Asideans, p. 355 

asya, a supposed derivation of Essene, 
P- 352 

Athanasius, on ‘Firstborn of all Crea- 
tion,’ i. 15 


422 


Athens, slavery at, p. 320; a Buddhist 
burnt alive at, p. 394 

Augustine, on ‘Firstborn of all Crea- 
tion,’ i. 15; on ‘wisdom and know- 
ledge,’ ii. 3 

dydrn, 6 vlds Tis dydans adrod, i. 13 

dytos, i. 2 

cydv, dywrla, dywrltecPat, i, 29, ll. 1, 
iv. 12 

adedpds (6), i. x 

adupety, lil. 21 

aisxpodoyla, ili. 8 

dxabapala, ili. 5 

adas, iv. 5 

ddnbela, 7) GAnOela Tod evaryyerlov, i. 5; 
év dAnbela, i. 6 

ddd, in apodosis after el, ii. 5 

dwmos, i. 22 

dvaraver Gat, Ph. 7 

avarAnpody, 1. 24 

avéykXyTOS, 1. 22 

aveyuds, iv. 10 

dvnxev, iii. 18; 7d dvqxor, Ph. 8 

av@pwrdperkot, li, 22 

dvravamAnpoor, i. 24 

dyramédogts, ill. 24 

adparos, i, 16 

amexdvecOat, il. 15 

améxOvats, li. 11 

anéxew, Ph. 15 

dmnddorpiwpévot, i, 21 

amobvicKe, li. 20 

dmroxarahAdooev, 1. 20, 21 

dmékpugos, il. 3 

dmoNUTpwots, 1. 14 

dmoxpnots, il. 22 

amrecOat, ii. 21 

épéoxera, 1. 10 

px, applied to Christ, p. 41; i. 16, 18 

aitave, i. 6 

autos éoTw, 1. 17 

edeldeca, li, 23 

apy, ll. 19 

axetporoinros, li. 11 

expyoros, Ph. 11 


B (Cod. Vaticanus), excellence of, p. 


247 
Banaim, p. 369 sq. 


INDEX. 


Banus, p. 369, 400 sq. 

Bardesanes, on Buddhists, p. 393 ; his 
date, ib. 

Barnabas, life of, iv. 10; epistle ascribed 
toyed: 

basilica, iv. 15 

Basilides, p, 265 

Baur, p. 77, 81, 318 

Bene-hakkeneseth, p. 367 

BGrahminism, p. 393, 394 

Buddhism, assumed influence on Es- 
senism, p. 390 8q.; supposed esta- 
blishment of, in Alexandria, p. 390; 
unknown in the West, p. 391 sq., 
four steps of, p. 395 sq. 

Buddhist at Athens, p. 394 

Bdrrioua, Bartiopds, ii. 12 

BapBapos, iil. 11 

Br\argonuta, ili. 8 

Bovd\ecOat, Ph. 13 

BpaBevery, iii, 15 


Cabbala, see Kabbala 

Cainites, p. 79 

Calvin, iii. 8, p. 275, 318 

Canonical writings and Papias, p. 52 

Carpocratians, p. 79, 80 

Cataphryges, p. 98 

Cavensis, codex, p. 282, 420 

celibacy, p. 375, 376; 413 Sq. 

Cerinthus, p. 107 sq.; Judaism of, p. 
108; Gnosticism of, ib.; cosmogony 
of, p. 109; Christology of, p. 111 
sq.; pleroma of, p. 264 

chaber, p. 364 8q. 

Chagigah, on ceremonial purity, p. 
365 84. 

Chalcedon, council of, p. 65 

chasha, chashaim, a derivation of Hs- 
sene, p. 354 

chesi, chasyo, a derivation of Essene, 
p. 353 8q.; connexion with chasid, p. 
360 

chasid, a false derivation of Essene, p. 
350 Sq. 

Chasidim, p. 355, 357 5q.; not a proper 
name for the Essenes, p. 358 

chasin, chosin, a false derivation for 
Essene, p. 341 


chaza, chazya, a derivation of Essene, 
P- 352 8q. 

Chonos or Chone, p. 15, 71 

Christ, the Person of, p. 34; St Paul’s 
doctrine about, p. 41, 115 sq., i. 15— 
20, li. g—15; the Word Incarnate, 
Pp. lot, 102; the pleroma in Him, 
p. 102, i. 19, ii. 9, 10; life in Him, 
the remedy against sin, p. 34, 120 
sq.; His teaching and practice not 
Essene, p. 409 sq. 

Christianity, not an outgrowth of Es- 
senism, p. 397 8q.; in relation to 
Epictetus, p. 13; to Gnosticism, p. 
80; to slavery, p. 323 sq. 

Christianity in Asia Minor, p. 50 

Christianized Hssenes, p. 89,90, 372 8q. 

Christians of St John, p. 405 

Christology of Ep. to Col. p. ro1, 122; 
of other Apostolic writings, p. 123; 
of succeeding ages, p. 124 

Chronicon Paschale, p. 48, 61 

Chrysostom, i. 13, 15, iii. 16, p. 274, 
Pars, Pe Sl7 

Cibotus, p. 21 

Cibyratic convention, p. 7 

circular letter—the Ep. to the Ephe- 
sians—p. 37 

Claudius, embassy from Ceylon in the 
reign of, p. 395 

Claudius Apollinaris, the name, p. 57 
sq.; his works, p. 58 sq. 

Clement of Alexandria, p. 79, 98, i. 9, 
15, ii. 8, ill. 5, 16, Pp. 393 Sq. 

Clement of Rome (§ 7) i. 3; (§ 58) i-t1; 
(§ 33) i. 15; (Ep. ii. $9), p. 104 
lementine Homilies, p. 372 sq., 375, 
406 

Clementine Recognitions, p. 404 

Clermont, p. 3 

collegia, iv. 15 

Colosse, orthography of, p. 16, i. 2; 
situation, etc., p. 1 8q.; site, p. 13; 
ancient greatness and decline, p.15; 
a Phrygian city, p. 18 sq.; Jewish 
colony at, p.19; not visited by St 
Paul when the epistle was written, 
p. 23; Epaphras the evangelist of, 
p- 29; intended visit of Mark to, p. 


423 


40; visit of St Paul to, p. 41; ob- 
scurity of, p. 70; a suffragan see of 
Laodicea, p. 6y; Turkish conquest 
of, p. 71 

Colossian heresy, nature of, p. 73 84.5 
89, ii. 8; writers upon, p. 74; had 
regard to the Person of Christ, p. 
112; relation to Gnosticism, p. 98 ; 
St Paul’s answer to, p. 115 8q. 

Colossians, Epistle to, p. 33; bearers 
of, p. 35; salutations in, 1b.; charge 
respecting Laodicea, p. 36; written 
by an amanuensis, iv. 18; Christo- 
logy of, p. 1223; style of, p. 125; 
analysis of, p. 126; various read- 
ings, see readings 

colossinus, p. 4 

community of goods, p. 416 

Concord of the Laodiceans and Ephe- 
sians, et¢., p. 31 

congregation, the holy, at Jerusalem, 
Pp. 367 

Constantine, legislation of, p. 327 

Constantinople, Council of, p. 65 

conventus, p. 7 

Corinth, visit of St Paul to, during his 
residence at Ephesus, p. 30 

Corinthians, First Epistle to; passages 
explained: (i. 19) 1. g; (il. 6, 7) i. 
28; (v.9) iv. 16; (vii. 21) p. 324 8q.; 
(viii. 6) p. 1223 (ix. 24) ii. 18; (xi. 7) 
1.053 (Rt.53) pl goa j) (Rut. 12) 1. os 
(xv. 24) i. 16 

Corinthians, Second Epistle to; pas- 
sages explained: (i. 7) i, 243 (ill. 6) 
trans (iv. 4) iste (veka, £3) i.20; 
(vi. x) 1.65 (vi 4, 6) 1. 123: (vili. 9) 
Os (ie na)! 20, 5s Bi ay 

Cornelius a Lapide, p. 233, 276 

Creation, Gnostic speculations about, 
p. 78 sq.; Essene do., p. 90 

Cyril of Alexandria, p. 393 

xa0ws Kal, i, 6, iii. x 

kat in both members of a comparison, 
i. 6 

Kal cot, il, 1 

xawbs and véos, ii. fo 

kaxla, ii. 8 

KapmropopctaCat, 1. 6 


424 


KaraBpaBevew, ii. 18 

Karevwomioy avrod, 1. 22 

KarolKei, i. 19 

KevewBarevery, li. 18 

xepary, 1. 18 

K\npovopla, ili. 24 

KNfjpos, i. 12 

kAnrés, iil. 12 

xowwwrla, Ph. 6 

koulfew, iii. 25 

Koay, 1. 29 

Kopagos, Pp. 4 

Kdopos, ii. 8 

kpareiy, ii. 19 

Kpdros, i, 11 

xplvew, ii. 16 

krtows, i. 15 

kbptos, 6, (Christ) i. 10; (master), iii. 24 

Kup.orns, i. 16 

XaApakTyp, i. 15 

xapltecOat, ii. 13, iii. 13, Ph. 22 

xdpis, i. 2, (4) iii. 16; 4 xXdpes Tod Aeod, 
i. 6 

xetpbypagor, li. 14 

Xpnororns, iii. 12 


Damascene: see John Damascene 

Darmstadiensis Codex, p. 282 

dative (of instrument), ii, 7, iii. 16; 
(of part affected), i. 4 

Demas, p. 36, iv. 14, Ph. 24 

Denizli, p. 7; earthquake at, p. 3 

diocese, p. 7 

Diognetus, Epistle to, i. 18 

Dion Chrysostom, p. 81, 391 

Diospolis, an old name of Laodicea, 
p. 68 

Divinity of Christ, p. ror 8q., 116 8q., 
ae 

Docetzx, use of pleroma by, p. 271 

dualism, p. 78, 87, 387 

dyes of Colosse and the neighbour- 
hood, p. 4 

devyparlfew, ii, 15 

déoutos, Ph. 1, 10 

deouos, Ph. 13 

&d& with gen., used of the Logos, p. 
122, i. 16, 20 

diaxovla, Sudkovos, iv. 7, 17 


INDEX. 


bddoxew, i. 28 

duolknots, P. 7 

Soypa, ii. 14 

doypuarlfer, li, 20 

dcéa, i. 11, 27 

dovdes, Ph. 163; dovdos “Inoov Xpucroi, 
iv. 12 

dvvapus, i. 16 

Suvapour, 1. 11 


Earthquakes in the valley of the Ly- 
cus, p. 38 

Ebionite Christology of Cerinthus, p.110 

Elchasai, founder of the Mandeans, p. 
407 

Elchasai, Book of, p. 375 

elders, primitive, p. 368 

Eleazar expels evil spirits, p. gt 

English Church on the Epistle to Lao- 
dicea, p. 296 

English versions of the Epistle to Lao- 
dicea, p. 297 8q. 

Epaphras, p. 34; evangelist of Co- 
losse, p. 29, 31; mission to St Paul, 
p: 32, 1V. 12, ER. 23 

Epaphroditus, p. 34 

Ephesians, Epistle to; acircular letter, 
p. 37; readings in, harmonistic with 
Epist. to Col. p. 246 sq.; passages 
explained, i. 18 (i. 23); i 21 (i. 16); 
i; 234.) 18)3 Bs Shi.) ep zan. 
1); li. 4675 (Gy eaheeiio aoe er): 
ii. 4 (i. 24) § 3a.) as) (Ey ag) a ae xO 
(i. 20); li..20 (il. 7)3 Til. 17. (tl) 5 
iii. 21) (1.26); iv. ro, 1P (G@. 17) ay. 
1§ (i. 21); iv. 19, V- 3 (iil..5); V. 32 
(i. 26) 

Ephesus, Council of, p. 65 

Ephesus, St Paul at, p. 30, 95; exor- 
cists at, p. 95 

Epictetus, p. 13 

Epiphanius, account of Cerinthus, p. 
107; on the Nasareans, p. 373 

epistolary aorist, Ph. 11, 19, 21 

epulones of Ephesian Artemis called 
Essenes, p. 96 

Erasmus on the Epistle to Laodicea, 
p- 299 

Essene, meaning of term, p. 94; the 


INDEX. 


name, p. 349 8q.; Frankel’s theory, 
P- 356 sq. 

Essenes, p. 82, ii. 8; list of writers 
upon, p. 83; localities of, p. 93; 
asceticism of, p. 85; speculations of, 
p. 87; exclusiveness of, p. 92; Jo- 
sephus and Philo chief authorities 
upon, p. 370; oath taken by, p. 362; 
their grades, p. 365; origin and af- 
finities, p. 355 sq.; relation to Chris- 
tianity, p. 397 8q.; to Pharisaism, p. 
Ior, 356; to Neopythagoreanism, p. 
380 8q.; to Hemerobaptists, p. 4028q.; 
to Gnosticism, p. 92 sq.; to Parsism, 
p- 387 sq.; to Buddhism, p. 3908q.; 
avoidance of oaths, p. 415 sq.; for- 
tune-tellers, p. 418; silence of New 
Test. about, p. 398; relation to John 
the Baptist, p. 400 sq.; to James the 
Lord’s brother, p. 407 8q.3 Chris- 
tianized Essenes, p. 89, 90, 372 8q- 

Essenism, p. 82; main features of, p. 
83 sq.; compared with Christianity, 
p- 409 8q.; the sabbath, p. 410; 
lustrations, p. 411; avoidance of 
strangers, p. 412; asceticism, celi- 
bacy, p. 413; avoidance of the Tem- 
ple, p. 414; denial of the resurrec- 
tion of the body, p. 415; certain 
supposed coincidences with Christ- 
janity, p. 415 sq. 

Eusebius, on the earthquakes in the 
valley of the Lycus, p. 39; his mis- 
take respecting some martyrdoms, 
p. 48; silence about quotations from 
Canonical writings, p. 52; on tracts 
against Montanism, p. 56; on the 
Thundering Legion, p. 61; on Mar- 
cellus, i. 15 

evil, Gnostic theories about, p. 78 

exorcists at Ephesus, p. 95 

Ezra, restoration under, p. 353 

éavrov and avrov, i. 20; and ddA7jAwPr, 
iii. 13 

éy, Ph. 19 

€bedoOpyckela, ii, 23 

el ye, 1. 23 

elxwy, 1. 15, lil. 11 

elvat Kapmopopovpevor, i. 6 


425 


els, i. 6, li. 22, Ph. 6 

éx Aaodixlas (rv), iv. 16 

éxxAnola, iv. 15 

éxXexT Os, lil. 12 

éd\doyav, Ph. 18 

éAmls, i. 5 

év, iv. 12; denoting the sphere, i. 4; 
év air, i. 16; év méper, ii. 16; & 
mavrt Oedjpart, iv.12; év macy, i. 18; 
év rots épyos, i. 21; év Uuiv, 1. 27, 
ili. 16; év Xpior@, i. 2 

évepyeiv, evepyeiabat, i, 29 

éve, iii. 11 

ékaryopaterOat, iv. 5 

éfarel peu, li. 14 

éfovala, i. 13, 16 

é&w (of), iv. 5 

€opT?, ii. 16 

émiywaoKev, erlyvwots, P. 100, i. 6, 9, 
Ph. 6 

érOupla, lil. 5 

éripévery, 1, 23 

ériaToAH (n), iv. 16 

érixopnyety, li. 19 

érroikodopety, li. 7 

épyaverOat, iii, 23 

épebligery, iii. 21 

éppivwueévot, li. 7 

epxecOat, ili. 6 

evdpeoTos, ili. 20 

evdoxla, evdoxety, 1. 19 

evxapiorety, evxapioria, ii. 7, i. 3; evxa- 
ptoros, ili. 15 

"Edéova ypaumara, p. 95 

éxew, Ph. 17 

éxOpol, i. 21 


F (Codex Augiensis) relation to G, p. 
279 

Firstborn of all Creation, i. 15 

Flaccus, p. 20 

Frankel on the Essenes, p. 356 8q. 


G (Codex Boernerianus) relation to F, 
Pp. 279 

Galatia, meaning of, in St Paul and St 
Luke, p. 24 

Galatian and Colossian Judaism com- 
pared, p. 105, i. 28 


426 


Galatians, Epistle to; passages ex- 
plained, i. 24 (Gal. ii. 20), i. 28 (iv. 
19), ii. 8 (iv. 3) 

Galen, ii. 19, 20 

Ginsburg (Dr), p. 88, 363 84., 365, 397 
8q-, 413 

Gnostic, p. 80 sq. 

Gnostic element in Colossian heresy, 
P- 73 84- 

Gnostic sects, use of pleroma by, p. 
204 8q- 

Gnosticism, list of writers on, p. 77; 
definition of, p. 76 sq.; intellectual 
exclusiveness of, p. 77; speculations 
of, p. 77 sq.; practical errors of, 79 
8q.; independent of Christianity, p. 
80; relation to Judaism, p. 81; to 
Essenism, p.g3; to Colossian heresy, 
p- 98 

Gratz, p. 351, 359, 397, 399, 410, 411 

Greece, slavery in, p. 320 

Gregory the Great on the Epistle to 
the Laodiceans, p. 295 

guild of dyers, p. 4 

Tapudvas, p. 392 

years, i. g, ll. 3 

yYwOTLKOS, P. 31 


Haymo of Halberstadt, on the Epistle 
to the Laodiceans, p. 295 

Hebrew slavery, p. 319 sq. 

Hebrews, Epistle to the; passages ex- 
plained, i. rr (Heb. xi. 34); i. 15 (i. 
2, 3, 6) 

Hefele on the date of Claudius Apolli- 
naris, p. 60 

Hemerobaptists, p. 402 sq. 

Hervey of Dole, on the Epistle to the 
Laodiceans, p. 295 

Hierapolis, p.2, 9 ; modern name, p.9; 
physical features of, p. 10; a fa- 
mous watering place, p. 11; the 
Plutonium at, p.12; dyes of, p. 4; 
birthplace of Epictetus, p. 13 ; po- 
litical relations of, p. 18; attrac- 
tions for Jews, p. 22; a Christian 
settlement, p. 45; Philipof Bethsaida 
at, p. 45 8q.; Council at, p. «9; 


x 


Papias, bishop of, p. 4&8sq.; Abercius, 


INDEX. 


bishop of, p. 54 8q.; Claudius Apolli- 
naris, bishop of, p. 57 sq. 

Hilgenfeld, p..75 ; on the Essenes, p. 
390 sq. 


James the Lord’s brother, p. 407 sq. 

Jerome, p. 29; on St Paul's parents, 
P- 35; on the Epistle to the Laodi- 
ceans, p. 293 Sq. 

Jesus Justus, iv. 11 

Jews, sects of the, p. 82 

imperfect, iii. 18 

indicative after BXérew 7}, ii. 8 

infinitive of consequence, i. 10, iv. 3, 6 

Jghn (St) in Asia Minor, p. 41; Apoca- 
lypse, passages explained, p. qr (ili. 
14—21!) 

John (St), Gospel, p. 403 (i. 8, v. 35) ; Se- 
cond Epistle, p. 305; Third Epistle, ib. 

John the Baptist, not an Essene, p. 
400 8q.; disciples of, at Ephesus, p. 
402; claimed by Hemerobaptists, p. 
403 Sq. 

John (St), Christians of, p. 405 

John Damascene, p. 15 

John of Salisbury on the Epistle to the 
Laodiceans, p. 296 

Josephus on Essenism, p. 369 sq. 

Judaism and Gnosticism, p. 81 

ta, iv. 16 

"Toveros, iv. IF 

loorns, iv. 1 


Kabbala, p. 93, i. 16, ii. 8 


Lanfranc on the Epistle to the Laodi- 
ceans, Pp. 297 

Laodicea, situation, p. 2; name and 
history, p. 5; condition, p. 6; politi- 
cal rank and relations, p. 7, 18; reli- 
gious worship at, p.8; Council of, p. 
66; ecclesiastical status, p.69; dyes 
of, p. 4; surnamed Trimetaria, p. 18; 
the vaunt of, p. 44 

Laodicea, the letter from, iv. 16, p. 
274 Sq. 

Laodiceans, apocryphal Epistle to the, 
p. 281 sq.; list of mss of, p. 283 
sq.; Latin text of, p. 287; notes on, 
p. 289 sq.; theory of a Greek ori- 


INDEX. 


ginal, p. 2913; restoration of the 
Greek, p. 293; circulation of, p. 294 
sq.; English prologue and versions 
of, p. 298; strictures of Erasmus on, 
p. 209; opinions on the genuineness 
of, p. 300 

Latrocinium, sce Robbers’ Synod. 

Legio Fulminata, p. 61 

legislation of Constantine on slavery, 
P. 327 

Logos, the, i. 15 

Luke, St, iv. 14; his narrative of St 
Paul’s third missionary journey, p. 
24 8q.; makes a distinction between 
Philip the Apostle and Philip the 
Evangelist, p. 45, 59 

lukewarmness at Laodicea, p. 42 

lustrations of the Essenes, p. 413 

Luther’s estimate of the Epistle to 
Philemon, p. 317 

Lycus, district of the ; list of writers on, 
p- 1 8q.; physical features of, p. 2 
5q.; produce of, p. 4; subterranean 
channel of the, p. 14; earthquakes 
in the valley of the, p. 38 sq. 

Lycus, churches of the, p. 1 sq.; evan- 
gelised by Epaphras, p. 29 sq.; 
ecclesiastical status of, p. 69 

Aaodixla, iv. 13 

Abyov exew Ties, li. 23 


Magic, forbidden by Council of Laodi- 
cea, p. 69; among the Essenes, p. 
90 Sq.» 377 84. 

magical books at Ephesus, p. 95 

Mandeans, p. 405 

Marcosians, p. 269 

Mark (St) iv. 10; visits Colossm, p. 40 

Matthew (St) Gospel of, accepted by 
Cerinthus and the Ebionites, p. 108 

Megasthenes, p. 392 8q.- 

monasticism of the Essenes and Bud- 
dhists, p. 395 

Monoimus, the Arabian, p. 273 

Montanism, Claudius Apollinaris on, 
p- 59; Phrygian origin of, p. 98 

morning bathers, p. 368 sq., 402 sq. 

Muratorian Fragment on the Epistle 
to the Laodiccans, p. 292 


427 


paxpoOuula, i. 11, iil, 12 
Mepls, 1. 12 

pvelav movetcGar, Ph. 4 
Loupn, iil. 13 

povoyerns, 1. 15 
puoTnptoy, 1. 26 


Naassenes, p. 271 

Nasareans, Nasoreans, p. 372, 375, 405 

Neander on Cerinthus, p. 108 

Neopythagoreanism and Essenism, p. 
380 sq. 

New Testament, relation of, to the Old 
Testament, p. 118 

Nica, Bishops of Hierapolis and Lao- 
dicea at the Council of, p. 65 

Nicetas Choniates, p. 71 

Nicolaus of Damascus, p. 394 

nominative with definite article for 
vocative, iii. 18 

Novatianism in Phrygia, p. 98 

Nymphas, iv. 15, p. 31 

veounvia, il. 16 

véos, lii. 10 

vovderety, i. 28 

vov with aorist, i. 21 


Onesimus, p. 311, Ph. 10; at Rome, 
p- 33; encounters St Paul, p. 312; 
returns to Philemon, p. 35, 313 84.3 
legendary history of, p. 316 

Ophites, p. 81, 98, 271 

olxovoula, 1. 25 

olxos, THY KaT olkov, iV. 15 

omolwua, 1, 25 

dvacbat, dvaiunv, Ph. 20 

épy%, iii. 8 

Sorts, ili. 5, iv. 11 

dpOarpodovrcla, ill. 23 

woh, iii, 16 

ws, Ph. 14, 16 


Pantenus in India, p. 392 

Papias, p. 47; writings of, ib. ; life and 
teaching of, p. 48; account of, given 
by Eusebius, p. 49; traditions col- 
lected by, p. 51 8q.; refercnces to 
the Canonical writings, p. 51 Sq.; 


428 


silence of Eusebius, p. 52 ; views in- 
ferred from his associates, p. 53 

Parsism, resemblances to, in Essen- 
ism, p. 88,387 sq.; spread by the de- 
struction of the Persian empire, p. 
388; influence of, p. 389 

participle used for imperative, iii. 16 

Paschal controversy, p. 59, 63 

Paul (St) visits Phrygia on his second 
missionary journey, p. 23; had not 
visited Colosse when he wrote, p. 
23 8q.; visits Phrygia on his third 
journey, p. 24; silence about per- 
sonal relations with Colossa, p. 28; 
at Ephesus, p. 30, 95 sq.; at Rome, 
p- 32; mission of Epaphras to, ib.; 
meets with Onesimus, p. 33, 3123 
despatches three letters, p. 33; visits 
Colosse, p. 41; his plans after his 
release, Ph. 22; uses an amanuensis, 
iv. 18 ; his signature, iv. 18, Ph. 19; 
coincidences with words of our Lord, 
ii, 22; his teaching on the univer- 
sality of the Gospel, p. 99; on the 
kingdom of Christ, i. 13 sq.; on the 
orders of angels, i. 16 sq.; on phi- 
losophy, ii. 8; on the Incarnation, 
ii. g; on the abolition of distinc- 
tions, iii. 11; on slavery, iii. 22 sq., 
Pp. 323 8q.; his cosmogony and the- 
ology, p. ror sq.; his answer to the 
Colossian heresy, p. 115 8q.; his 
Christology, p. 122, i. 15 sq.; his 
relations with Philemon, p. 304 sq.; 
connects baptism and death, ii. 11, 
20, ili. 3; makes use of metaphors 
from the mysteries, i. 26, 28; from 
the stadium, ii. 18, iii. 14; his rapid 
change of metaphor, ii. 7 

Paul (St) Epistles of, correspondences 
with the Apocalypse—on the Person 
of Christ, p. 41; warning against 
lukewarmness, p. 42 ; against pride 
of wealth, p. 43 

Paul (St) apocryphal Epistle of, to 
the Laodiceans, p. 281 sq. 

Pedanius Secundus, execution of his 
slaves, p. 322 

Person of Christ, St Paul and St John 


INDEX. 


on, p. 41 8q.; St Paul’s answer to 
the Colossian heresy, p. 115 sq., i 
15 Sq. 

personal pronoun used for reflexive, 
1. 20, 22 

Peter (St) and the Church in Asia 
Minor, p. 41 

petrifying stream at Colosse, p. 15 

Pharisees, p. 82; relation to Essenes, 
Pp. 82, 356 8q., 376, 378 

Philemon, p. 31, 370, sq.; legendary 
history of, p. 305; his wife, p. 306; 
his son, p. 308 

Philemon, Epistle to; introduction to, 
p- 303; character of, p. 304; analy- 
sis of, p. 314. 8q.; different estimates 
of, p. 316 sq.; compared with a letter 
of Pliny, p. 318 

Philip the Apostle, in Asia, p. 45 sq.3 
confused with Philip the Evangelist, 
P- 45 

Philippopolis, synod of, p. 64 

Philo, on the Essenes, p. 350, 380; his 
use of Logos, i. 15 

Phrygia, p. 17 sq.; meaning of the 
phrase in St Luke, p. 23; religious 
tendencies of, p. 97 ; see Paul (St) 

Pistis Sophia, p. 273 

Pliny the elder, his account of the 
Kssenes, p. 83 

Pliny the younger, a letter of, p. 318 
8q. 

pleroma, p. 257 sq. 

Plutonium, at Hierapolis, p. 12 

Polycarp, martyrdom of, p. 49 

poverty, respect paid to, by Essenes 
and by Christ, p. 417 sq. 

Pretorius on the Epistle to the Lao- 
diceans, p. 300 

Pythagoreanism and Essenism, p. 380 
8q.; disappearance of, p. 383 

mdOos, iil. 5 

mapakaNely, ii, 2 

maparauBdaverv, li. 6 

mapdmrrwpd, i. 13 

tapeivat els, i. 6 

mapéxecOat, iv. I 

mapnyopla, iv. 11 

mappnola, év mappnalg, ii. 15, Ph. 8 


INDEX. 


was, was 6 kdouos, 1.16; maca xrlots, 
i. 15; 7a wdvra, i. 16 

marhp, 6 Geds marip, i. 33 TaThp Hav, 
i. 2 

maveoOa, Ph. 7 

mBavoroyla, li. 4 

mixpalvecOat, iii. 19 

mioTés, miaTol ddeAgol, 1. 2 

mcovetla, ili. 5 

adnpopoperv, iv. 12 

adnpogopla, li. 2 

awdnpodv, i. 25, iv. 17 

mAnpwya, i. 19, ii. g, P- 257 84. 

wANTHLOVH, ll. 23 

mdovTos, i, 27 

mopvela, ili. 5 

mpavrns, lili, 12 

mpeoBeurys, mpecBirns, Ph. 8 

mpd mdvrww, i. 17 

mpoaxovelr, 1. 5 

mpés, li. 23, Ph. 5 

mpockapreperabat, iv. 2 

mpocwmrornuyta, lil. 25 

mpwrérokos, i. 15, 18 

girocodgla, ii. 8 

POopa, li. 22 

ppdvyats, i. 9 

guraxrnptoy, p. 69 

Warués, iii. 16 


Quartodeciman controversy, p. 59, 63 
Quinisextine Council, p. 68 


Readings, harmonized with corre- 
sponding passages in the Epistle to 
the Ephesians, p. 246 (iii. 6); p. 247 
(ii. 21, V. 19) 

readings, various, p. 249 (i. 3); Pp. 250 
(i. 4,1. 7); p. 251 (i. 12,1. 14,1. 22); 
P- 252 (ii. 2); p. 253 (il. 16); p. 254 
(ii. 18, ii, 23); p. 255 (iv. 8); p. 256 
(iv. 15) 

Renan, on the meaning of Galatia in 
St Paul and St Luke, p. 25; on the 
Epistle to Philemon, p. 318 

resurrection of the body, p. 88, 415 

Revelation ; see Apocalypse 

Robbers’ Synod, p. 65 

Roman slavery, p. 321 


429 


Rome, Onesimus at, p. 312; St Paul 
at, p. 32 
pigoty, il. 7 


Sabbath, observance of, by Essenes, p. 
84, 410 

Sabewans, p. 405 

sacrifices prohibited by Essenes, p. 89, 
371 

Sadduceeism, p. 82 

Sagaris, bishop of Laodicea, p. 63 

Samanzi, p. 392 sq. 

Sampseans, p. 374 

Sarmane, p. 392 sq. 

satisfactorie, sufferings of Christ, re- 
garded as, i. 25 

Secundus, see Pedanius Secundus 

Seven churches, literature relating to, 
p.1 

Sibylline Oracle, p. 96 

silence of Eusebius on canonical books, 
p- 52 s8q.; of the New Testament 
about the Essenes, p. 398 

slave martyrs, p. 326 

slavery, Hebrew, p. 319; Greek, p. 320; 
Roman, p. 321; St Paul’s treatment 
of, p. 323 sq.; attitude of Christian- 
ity towards, p. 325 sq.; prohibited 
by Essenes, p. 417; legislation of 
Constantine, p. 327; of Justinian, 
p. 328; abolition of, ib. 

Socrates on Novatianism in Phrygia, 
p. 98 

Sophia of Valentinus, p. 267; Sophia 
Achamoth, p. 268 

stadium, metaphor from the, ii. 18 

Stapleton on the Epistle to the Laodi- 
ceans, p. 300 

Strabo on Buddhism, p. 391 sq. 

sunworship, p. 87, 374 8q., 382, 387 

odBBara, ii. 16 

odpt, 7d cua Tis capKés, i. 22 

DKvns, li. 11 

gogla, i. 9, 28, il. 3, iii. 16 

omhdyxva (Td); iii. 12, Ph. 7, 12 

oTepéwma, li. 5 

oroxela (rd), li. 8 

guvaywyely, li. 8 

oupBiBagey, li. 2, 19 


430 


ouvarxpdrwros, iv. 10 
ctivdeouos, il. rg, lil. 14 
avvdounos, i. 7, iv. 7 

civeots, i. Q, il. 2 

ovotpatiorys, Ph. 2 

cpa, TO cua THs capkés, ii. 11 
TwMATIKS, ll. O 


Tacitus on the earthquake at Laodicea, 
P- 39 

Talmud, supposed etymologies of Es- 
sene in, p. 352 8q., 357 Sq.; supposed 
allusions to the Essenes, p. 364 sq. 

Testaments, Old and New, p. 119 

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 
on the orders of angels, i. 16 

theanthropism of the New Testament, 
p- 119 

thundering legion, p. 61 

Thyatira, dyes of, p. 4 

Timotheus, his position in these epi- 
stles, i. 1, Ph. 1; ‘the brother,’ i. 1 

Tivoli compared with the valley of the 
Lycus, p. 3 

travertine deposits in the valley of the 
Lycus, p. 3 

Trimetaria, asurname of Laodicea, p. 18 

Tychicus, iv. 7, p. 35, 314 

Tamewoppoovry, iii. 12 

Takis, li. 5 

TéXevos, i. 28 

tis (indef.), St Paul’s use of, ii. 8 

rototros wy, Ph. g, 12 

Gérew, Ph. 13; OédAew ev, ii. 18 


INDEX. 


6éAnua Oeod, i. 1 

Bepedtody, i. 23 

Gebrns, TO Oetov, ii. 9 
Ovyyaveu, ii. 21 

OvnoKkew, arobvncKely, ii. 20 
OprapBevew, ii. 15 

Ovuss, iii. 8 

Ovpa Tod Adyou, iv. 3 


Uuvos, iil. 16 

Umevavrtos, ii. 14 

Umrouovn, i. II 

vorépnua, i. 24, p. 269 Sq. 


Valentinianism, different forms of, p. 
266 sq. 

Valentinians accept St Paul and St 
John, p. 270 

Valentinus, use of pleroma by, p. 265 

vathikin, p. 368 

versions of the Epistle to the Lao- 
diceans, Latin, p. 291; Bohemian, 
German, and English, p. 297 sq. 


Word, the, p. ror, see Logos, Christ 
Wycliffe, on the apocryphal Epistle to 
the Laodiceans, p. 297 


Yavana or Yona, p. 390 


Zeller on Essenism, p. 380 sq. 
Zend Avesta, p. 387 
Zoroastrianism and Hssenism, p. 387 


8q. 





Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians 
Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library 


ties te ie 
Prem vr 


{ i" ae 7 
; v Mn Me - i 
heat 





eee tha ErEERATaS 
Leet tr itu LRT 


Wee tebe 


i 
Wish avele Ein teng dl fe 
ro Pehaditsri he " 


BMobot 


bitte 
MUR ies tahyse ter ten webu tie Meats noon 
Bote e pet ted De Bb le 


2h. Di te iepies be 


i aetat 
Vahpevii's aes { ; ' fh net 


vst 


Debate les nah 
feed 


HLCP ey or) 


tial 


ee, 


aa 


3 od 


That 
wryly 


ce 


te 


fi iy Uy hiss 
stan eee 
optaer oh 

Feeney ats 
Piytraiirirene 


VEGI 6 séUby 
Wad 


Sadek watt 
ew vis tr et Man ete 
ten eG i 
Stet 
fetes 
PHEW atat usta 
el tot inno 
Be shetcaiy ae Bian ating 


Praha cmd egy 


piilapess 
Facet iar 


oe 
tithe 


ME why ee 
Suey 


at 
WUE yr ae ‘ 
NCE Oberon ty Sgt ne 

ieee aht 


BOWet Ey 
Oty 
4 ‘ 
eet yer 
Raa tet 
Peeiayy 


Wey Marg Fk 
Coon 


wads 
ae 


u 
iat tus ie 





